dgilmore changed the topic of #fedora-riscv to: Fedora on RISC-V https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/RISC-V || Logs: https://libera.irclog.whitequark.org/fedora-riscv || Alt Arch discussions are welcome in #fedora-alt-arches
esv_ has joined #fedora-riscv
esv_ has quit [Client Quit]
kalev has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
davidlt_ has joined #fedora-riscv
jcajka has joined #fedora-riscv
davidlt_ has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
droidrage has joined #fedora-riscv
davidlt_ has joined #fedora-riscv
<davidlt[m]> Is there are COPR repo with QEMU RC versions?
<davidlt[m]> virt-preview does not deliver RC versions for 7.2.0
davidlt_ is now known as davidlt
<davidlt[m]> Ah, the final 7.2.0 might happen today.
<varlad[m]> @davidlt#1901 Any idea when riscv64 will be available in COPR as an architecture?
<davidlt[m]> varlad: no idea, but I don't expect it to happen anytime soon. Mostly due to lack of proper hardware.
<varlad[m]> davidlt[m]: I guess the SBCs available currently are not good enough?
<davidlt[m]> Yes, those are not a proper server thus are not plug & play.
<davidlt[m]> and again there are no standards based hardware in general, because the standards don't exist yet too.
<varlad[m]> Ah, standards?
<davidlt[m]> Yeah. psABI just got ratified. RISC-V Profiles are frozen. OS-A SEE, Platforms, etc.
<davidlt[m]> None of existing (or near future) hardware is compliant to what we want.
<varlad[m]> Ah darn...
<varlad[m]> I thought just having a powerful enough device would cut it xD
<davidlt[m]> There are a bunch of standards being worked on and ratified that are required for software/firmware/distros/etc. There are also the other set needed for distros, but are bit targeting HW like IOMMU.
<davidlt[m]> Yes, and no.
<davidlt[m]> If that hardware is in a form of SBC it's not enough.
<varlad[m]> davidlt[m]: So whats the target?
<varlad[m]> Fedora does target other SBCs right? Like ARM based ones
<davidlt[m]> Yeah, but infrastructure doesn't run on them.
<davidlt[m]> Those are true certified powerful servers with BMC, etc.
<varlad[m]> Ah true...
<varlad[m]> So I guess Fedora for RISCV when it sees server use or desktop use?
<varlad[m]> * it sees popular server use
<davidlt[m]> We target everything. I have been running RISC-V desktop for years now.
<davidlt[m]> But future is not defined, but at some point we will go towards standards based systems I would assume.
<davidlt[m]> I am not even sure that Fedora will run on current SBCs in the future.
<davidlt[m]> riscv64 today is RV64GC (or probably RVA20U64 profile; once ratified).
<davidlt[m]> This month we probably gonna get RVA22U64, but that's a minor change.
<davidlt[m]> RVA23U64 (to be defined in early 2023 [I wonder if that will happen]) is the next "major" one.
<davidlt[m]> Think about it like ARMv8 -> ARMv9.
<varlad[m]> davidlt[m]: But that mostly depends on mainline support right?
<varlad[m]> Fedora can provide a RISCV64GC iso and it'll run wherever mainline support exists or something right?
<davidlt[m]> So the thing is that majority of standards based hardware will be based on RVA22 (or/and RVA23).
<davidlt[m]> Two companies already announced core IP with compatibility with RVA22.
<varlad[m]> Oh?
<varlad[m]> SiFive's cores and Xuantie's new one?
<davidlt[m]> So we could do two arches, or switch to the most recent one because there aren't a large user base yet.
<davidlt[m]> Yes, like SiFive P670.
<davidlt[m]> armv7 was a mess, aarch64 is somewhat better, but still a mess.
<varlad[m]> Ah, by the way, they both rock proper support for V extension 1.0
<varlad[m]> Any idea about an SBC which uses them? xD
<davidlt[m]> riscv64 is a mess too right now, but there aren't too much users, etc. Thus we might want enforce standards when moving towards a primary arch status.
<davidlt[m]> Nope. I don't think there is any.
<davidlt[m]> It typically takes 1-3 years after announcement.
<varlad[m]> :(
<davidlt[m]> For example, Intel/SIFive Horse Creek (not yet announced/released) is already quite old.
<davidlt[m]> It's P550. We already had P650, P670, and probably something else will come by the time folks get P550 in their hands.
<varlad[m]> But isn't VisionFive 2 P650?
<davidlt[m]> So this train from IP announcement to a product (especially SBC) takes years.
<davidlt[m]> No, that's U74MC. Similar to Unmatched/FU740 just few years newer IP.
<davidlt[m]> So new features, new performance/area/etc. optimizations, errata fixes, etc.
<varlad[m]> Ah :<
<varlad[m]> (Although all everyone announces is new cores for some reason...) :<
<varlad[m]> On the other hand, there's always a good chance that a new player will announce something put of nowhere right? :P
<varlad[m]> Still got nothing on Dubhe xD
<varlad[m]> s/put/new/
<davidlt[m]> Yeah, there are loads of companies working on various things.
<davidlt[m]> Remember that SBCs are making money. You are not gonna invest money to design IP and chips just for SBCs.
<davidlt[m]> So there must be a larger market and some chips trickle down to SBC market.
<davidlt[m]> rsync 0, rclone 1
<davidlt[m]> managed to hit 95+MB/s with rclone
davidlt has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
davidlt has joined #fedora-riscv
jcajka has quit [Quit: Leaving]
jim-wilson[m] has joined #fedora-riscv
davidlt has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
<somlo> davidlt[m]: on the rawhide-20220726 (f33) image, if I try and run mock using the provided `fedora-33-riscv64.cfg` configuration, I get a bunch of errors about `mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink/...` related to the riscv64 arch
Kevinsadminaccou has joined #fedora-riscv
<somlo> which is not surprising
<somlo> but then I wonder, is there a good way to build a srpm using mock on fedora-riscv64?