Re: [9fans] Plan 9 potential target ports (Was: PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!))

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 potential target ports (Was: PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!))

[Lucio De Re]

On 10/11/18, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ ... ] which is why i would never actually
> recommend the pi. And there are even more alternatives now.
>
Simply because I've never seen their name mentioned here - I did miss
a year or two, I'm sure I mentioned them before that - let me do same
namedropping: Olimex.

They are a Bulgarian electronic engineering outfit that seriously
believes in Open Hardware and consistently prove that they do. They in
turn seem to be missing the Plan 9 boat, but it's easier to understand
that.

Were I to get a chance to relive my life, I'd take an early turn to
Bulgaria around 2000 and a bit (my dream country is Iceland, actually,
but Bulgaria makes a nice second-best - I do like the weather in South
Africa, though, but I'm not that much of an outside person).

Anyway. back to Olimex. They have an impressive range of products they
have developed and quality controlled themselves. All of them
available as circuit diagrams and printed circuit board templates.

Their kit laptop begs to be given a Plan 9 lease of life, but my close
friend who yearly visits Bulgaria wasn't in a position to bring me a
sample. Next year, I will make sure he does.

And while mentioning my dreamscape, does anyone consider the Fairfone
(or Fairphone) a plausible target for a Plan 9 based mobile port?

Lucio.

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 potential target ports (Was: PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!))

[hiro]

i have heard the name olimex in this context, too.

a big problem with all alternatives is often that graphics or video
decoding require binary firmware, or work only on linux, and no
documentation exists from the chip vendors.

i think generally there's a lot of low-power linux stuff to chose
from, but once you plan to port plan9 to it, the fragmented nature of
the arm platforms becomes a problem. no free lunch :(

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 potential target ports (Was: PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!))

[Lucio De Re]

On 10/12/18, hiro <23hiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> i think generally there's a lot of low-power linux stuff to chose
> from, but once you plan to port plan9 to it, the fragmented nature of
> the arm platforms becomes a problem. no free lunch :(
>
That is a fact, Hiro. I paid scant attention to that issue, perhaps
being old enough to consider (wrongly, in the case of the Plan 9 user
space) that graphics are not indispensable.

I do recall, vaguely, an Olimex comment about graphics being more
accessible, but I did not make a note, the little that stuck was that
some hardware manufacturer had embraced a slightly better standard
than VESA, or some such. There may be some hardware out there that
does not have "closed" graphics.

In a perfect world, that would be an opportunity, but it seems we're
not there yet,

Lucio.

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 potential target ports (Was: PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!))

[Chris McGee]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 689 bytes --]

> I do recall, vaguely, an Olimex comment about graphics being more
> accessible, but I did not make a note, the little that stuck was that
> some hardware manufacturer had embraced a slightly better standard
> than VESA, or some such. There may be some hardware out there that
> does not have "closed" graphics.
>

I thought that aijuboard got around this with an fpga implementation of a
frame buffer and hdmi signalling, but I suppose that ramps up the price
significantly as you'd need an fpga board in there and also an hdmi capable
lcd. Otherwise, I wonder how difficult it would be to set up a framebuffer
on the A64 like what was done with Richard's rpi code.

Chris

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 935 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 potential target ports (Was: PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!))

[Ethan Gardener]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018, at 3:37 PM, Chris McGee wrote:
>
>> I do recall, vaguely, an Olimex comment about graphics being more
>>  accessible, but I did not make a note, the little that stuck was that
>>  some hardware manufacturer had embraced a slightly better standard
>>  than VESA, or some such. There may be some hardware out there that
>>  does not have "closed" graphics.
>
> I thought that aijuboard got around this with an fpga implementation of a frame buffer and hdmi signalling, but I suppose that ramps up the price significantly as you'd need an fpga board in there and also an hdmi capable lcd. Otherwise, I wonder how difficult it would be to set up a framebuffer on the A64 like what was done with Richard's rpi code.

aijuboard isn't cheap in the first place; it's small production volume problem.  i think it has displayport, actually.  i remember it was a choice between those two standards, and i think hdmi wouldn't have left high-speed channels free for sata.  i don't remember any other display output being considered.  i do remember much complaining about the displayport standard.  oh well. :)

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 potential target ports (Was: PDP11 (Was: Re: what heavy negativity!))

[cinap_lenrek]

the complains where about the *HDMI*. which is the work
of DRM mafia. displayport at is a standard with available
documentation.

--
cinap