* [9front] build iso from arm64 @ 2022-05-06 3:47 william 2022-05-06 15:34 ` ori 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: william @ 2022-05-06 3:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9front Here are the exact commands I ran followed by the error at the end. I must be missing a step or not understanding something. cd / for(i in /sys/src/cmd/7[acl]){cd $i && mk install} build remaining arm64 binaries cd /sys/src objtype=arm64 mk install Building an ISO Put your root file system into /n/src9 bind /root /n/src9 Put your hg repository there bind -ac /dist/plan9front /n/src9 Build the iso cd /sys/lib/dist mk /tmp/9front.$objtype.iso mk: don't know how to make '/tmp/9front.arm64.iso' in directory /sys/lib/dist ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [9front] build iso from arm64 2022-05-06 3:47 [9front] build iso from arm64 william @ 2022-05-06 15:34 ` ori 2022-05-07 3:31 ` william 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: ori @ 2022-05-06 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9front Quoth william@thinktankworkspaces.com: > Here are the exact commands I ran followed by the error at the end. I must be missing > a step or not understanding something. > > cd / > for(i in /sys/src/cmd/7[acl]){cd $i && mk install} > > build remaining arm64 binaries > > cd /sys/src > objtype=arm64 > mk install > > Building an ISO > > Put your root file system into /n/src9 > > bind /root /n/src9 > > Put your hg repository there > > bind -ac /dist/plan9front /n/src9 > > Build the iso > > cd /sys/lib/dist > mk /tmp/9front.$objtype.iso > > mk: don't know how to make '/tmp/9front.arm64.iso' in directory /sys/lib/dist > > I don't think we have any arm images that boot from an iso, so we have no rules for building it. pick a target that exists -- say, amd64 or 386. read the mkfile to see what we can build. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [9front] build iso from arm64 2022-05-06 15:34 ` ori @ 2022-05-07 3:31 ` william 2022-05-07 3:45 ` ori 2022-05-07 4:03 ` ori 0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: william @ 2022-05-07 3:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9front Thanks. I miss the obvious. I have another question. Looks like I need to add an entry form arm64. But where is the kernel for arm64? It can't be 9pc64 that is AMD, bcm is for pi i.e broadcom. I know 9pc64 is wrong but ran it anyways. %.arm64.iso: @{ objtype=arm64 kernel=/n/src9/$objtype/9pc64 mk $target.$pid.pc.iso mv $target.$pid.pc.iso $target } /sys/lib/dist cpu% mk /tmp/9front.$objtype.iso @{ objtype=arm64 kernel=/n/src9/$objtype/9pc64 mk /tmp/9front.arm64.iso.60008.pc.iso mv /tmp/9front.arm64.iso.60008.pc.iso /tmp/9front.arm64.iso } mk: don't know how to make '/n/src9/arm64/9pc64' in directory /sys/lib/dist mk: @{ objtype=arm64 kernel=/n/src9/$objtype/9pc64 ... : exit status=rc 60010: rc 60012: mk 60013: error I went to /sys/src9/386 and kernel boot and a few other files exist for 386. I suspect I have more leg work to do Is it /sys/src/9/kw or is it /sys/src/9/omap I guess this is the next decision its an ARM Cortex-A53 I guess I need set CONF and try running make in either of those directories. Then copy the kernel over. Quoth ori@eigenstate.org: > Quoth william@thinktankworkspaces.com: > > Here are the exact commands I ran followed by the error at the end. I must be missing > > a step or not understanding something. > > > > cd / > > for(i in /sys/src/cmd/7[acl]){cd $i && mk install} > > > > build remaining arm64 binaries > > > > cd /sys/src > > objtype=arm64 > > mk install > > > > Building an ISO > > > > Put your root file system into /n/src9 > > > > bind /root /n/src9 > > > > Put your hg repository there > > > > bind -ac /dist/plan9front /n/src9 > > > > Build the iso > > > > cd /sys/lib/dist > > mk /tmp/9front.$objtype.iso > > > > mk: don't know how to make '/tmp/9front.arm64.iso' in directory /sys/lib/dist > > > > > > I don't think we have any arm images that boot from an iso, > so we have no rules for building it. > > pick a target that exists -- say, amd64 or 386. > > read the mkfile to see what we can build. > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [9front] build iso from arm64 2022-05-07 3:31 ` william @ 2022-05-07 3:45 ` ori 2022-05-07 4:03 ` ori 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: ori @ 2022-05-07 3:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9front Quoth william@thinktankworkspaces.com: > Thanks. I miss the obvious. > > I have another question. Looks like I need to add > an entry form arm64. But where is the kernel for arm64? > > It can't be 9pc64 that is AMD, bcm is for pi i.e broadcom. I know 9pc64 is wrong but ran it anyways. arm isn't a system; it's a processor type. bcm64 is the only system that runs on arm64 that's currently supported; if you want to run it on another arm64 processor, you need to write code -- mostly drivers. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [9front] build iso from arm64 2022-05-07 3:31 ` william 2022-05-07 3:45 ` ori @ 2022-05-07 4:03 ` ori 2022-05-07 4:36 ` mkf9 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: ori @ 2022-05-07 4:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9front Quoth william@thinktankworkspaces.com: > I have another question. Looks like I need to add > an entry form arm64. But where is the kernel for arm64? To put it another way: every arm board is different, wtih different busses, drivers, peripherals, etc. We don't have one kernel for all of them. Each image targets one specific arm system. Arm is a pain that way. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [9front] build iso from arm64 2022-05-07 4:03 ` ori @ 2022-05-07 4:36 ` mkf9 2022-05-07 4:45 ` Kurt H Maier 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: mkf9 @ 2022-05-07 4:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9front May 7, 2022 08:34:11 ori@eigenstate.org: > Quoth william@thinktankworkspaces.com: >> I have another question. Looks like I need to add >> an entry form arm64. But where is the kernel for arm64? > > To put it another way: every arm board is different, > wtih different busses, drivers, peripherals, etc. > > We don't have one kernel for all of them. Each > image targets one specific arm system. > > Arm is a pain that way. Is it a problem with arm itself, or we don't have code to have a unified arm kernel (bcm+omap+etc) yet? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [9front] build iso from arm64 2022-05-07 4:36 ` mkf9 @ 2022-05-07 4:45 ` Kurt H Maier 2022-05-07 5:29 ` william 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Kurt H Maier @ 2022-05-07 4:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9front On Sat, May 07, 2022 at 04:36:29AM +0000, mkf9 wrote: > Is it a problem with arm itself, > or we don't have code to have > a unified arm kernel (bcm+omap+etc) yet? It's a problem with ARM itself. Everyone pays ARM for processor designs and then bolts random shit to it. Since the random shit is not subject to any standardization effort, every device is a special snowflake. khm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [9front] build iso from arm64 2022-05-07 4:45 ` Kurt H Maier @ 2022-05-07 5:29 ` william 2022-05-07 13:51 ` Stanley Lieber 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: william @ 2022-05-07 5:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9front Quoth Kurt H Maier <khm@sciops.net>: > On Sat, May 07, 2022 at 04:36:29AM +0000, mkf9 wrote: > > Is it a problem with arm itself, > > or we don't have code to have > > a unified arm kernel (bcm+omap+etc) yet? > > It's a problem with ARM itself. Everyone pays ARM for processor designs > and then bolts random shit to it. Since the random shit is not subject > to any standardization effort, every device is a special snowflake. > > khm > Good to know. I'm glad I didn't waste too much time and getting further lost. Basically I need to pour through the different arm repo's and puzzle what I can for NXP/Freescale i.MX8MQ with 4x ARM Cortex-A53 cores (1.5 GHz), 1x Cortex-M4F core. not familiar with paqfs. So that was interesting but I could comment all that out. This is an MNT reform laptop. After putting it together it seems pretty stable and I'm interest in porting plan9 to this thing. I expect I might need to dig into the ARM® Cortex®-A53 MPCore Processor Revision: r0p3 and try to figure this thing out. But before I do this has anyone made any headway in this area? I'm enjoying the laptop. The keyboard is a bit funky the mapping is different but all in all its enjoyable laptop and a bit sturdy. Recommendations greatly welcomed. Regards, -Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [9front] build iso from arm64 2022-05-07 5:29 ` william @ 2022-05-07 13:51 ` Stanley Lieber 2022-05-07 15:14 ` Thaddeus Woskowiak 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Stanley Lieber @ 2022-05-07 13:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9front [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1686 bytes --] a few of us have these things. cinap has it booting to userspace over serial connection, but nobody has graphics working yet. i don’t think anything has been committed yet. http://mnt.stanleylieber.com/reform/ sl > On May 7, 2022, at 1:30 AM, william@thinktankworkspaces.com wrote: > > Quoth Kurt H Maier <khm@sciops.net>: >>> On Sat, May 07, 2022 at 04:36:29AM +0000, mkf9 wrote: >>> Is it a problem with arm itself, >>> or we don't have code to have >>> a unified arm kernel (bcm+omap+etc) yet? >> >> It's a problem with ARM itself. Everyone pays ARM for processor designs >> and then bolts random shit to it. Since the random shit is not subject >> to any standardization effort, every device is a special snowflake. >> >> khm >> > > Good to know. I'm glad I didn't waste too much time and getting further lost. > > Basically I need to pour through the different arm repo's and puzzle what I can for > NXP/Freescale i.MX8MQ with 4x ARM Cortex-A53 cores (1.5 GHz), 1x Cortex-M4F core. > > not familiar with paqfs. So that was interesting but I could comment all that out. > > This is an MNT reform laptop. After putting it together it seems pretty stable and I'm interest > in porting plan9 to this thing. I expect I might need to dig into the ARM® Cortex®-A53 MPCore Processor > Revision: r0p3 and try to figure this thing out. > > But before I do this has anyone made any headway in this area? I'm enjoying the laptop. The keyboard > is a bit funky the mapping is different but all in all its enjoyable laptop and a bit sturdy. > > Recommendations greatly welcomed. > > Regards, > -Will > > > > > > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3109 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [9front] build iso from arm64 2022-05-07 13:51 ` Stanley Lieber @ 2022-05-07 15:14 ` Thaddeus Woskowiak 2022-05-07 18:49 ` Kurt H Maier 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Thaddeus Woskowiak @ 2022-05-07 15:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9front I dont think it's fair to blame Arm as no one bothered to build a standard Arm platform in the same vein as the PC. Before the IBM PC XT and later AT standard existed the home computer industry was in a similar situation with random intel, wd, zilog, motorola systems kicking about with incompatibilities between them. IBM was very influential and relevant at the time so it stands to reason that the PC was in a unique position to take off. Who is going to IBM the Arm platform? Microsoft? Amazon? Google? Facebook? They're too busy building ant farms. The PC platform is an agreement between manufacturers to use a standard boot firmware (bios/uefi), standard hardware interfaces (e.g. pci, ata, vesa, etc, ac97/hda), and booting procedures (mbr/gpt). Hardware is wired predictably so video, keyboard, com ports, timers, etc are always on the same addresses, interrupt and dma ports meaning drivers don't have to be tweaked or re-written between vendors. Nowadays we have such complex (batshit even) hardware that we need to manage it via a subsystem which we know as acpi that adds a whole layer of abstraction to talk to fans and firmwares. The closest we have had is the Microsoft Windows RT Surface which bolted wintel PC baggage to Arm such as uEFI and ACPI. Basically an Arm PC. Raspberry pi is an honorable mention by fitting their firmware with pc like booting from usb, pxe and so on but pi firmware isn't portable as the pi hardware is batshit wherein the gpu handles the bootstrapping, not the Arm cpus.... It would be nice to have a platform controller, firmware and api using 9p so we can mount and walk the platform controller on boot then find and configure what we need. Though, for anything to succeed, it would need the weight of an IBM behind it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [9front] build iso from arm64 2022-05-07 15:14 ` Thaddeus Woskowiak @ 2022-05-07 18:49 ` Kurt H Maier 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Kurt H Maier @ 2022-05-07 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9front On Sat, May 07, 2022 at 11:14:37AM -0400, Thaddeus Woskowiak wrote: > Who is going to IBM the Arm platform? Microsoft? Amazon? Google? > Facebook? Google could easily drive the entire ARM SoC market themselves, without question, just by making requirements in Android. In fact the ARM/Google relationship would nicely parallel the Intel/Microsoft reign of terror. > The PC platform is an agreement between manufacturers to use a > standard boot firmware (bios/uefi), standard hardware interfaces (e.g. > pci, ata, vesa, etc, ac97/hda), and booting procedures (mbr/gpt). No, it's not an agreement between manufacturers. Every one of the standards you mentioned came from Intel except for ATA. If you want an Intel chip in your computer, you play ball. Fortunately it's easy to play ball, because once you sign the NDAs Intel will happily do half the work for you. > The closest we have had is the Microsoft Windows RT Surface The closest we've had with a chance at being a competitor is the Google Chromebook specifications, but it's severely limiting in what hardware it allows, which leads back to a free-for-all once you step outside the spec. Another could-have-been was the OLPC XO-4 ARM machines, which shipped with a beautiful OpenFirmware build that supported all the hardware natively, no ACPI required. > Though, for anything to succeed, it would need the weight of an IBM > behind it. No, I think ARM could step up and offer meaningful reference designs, and that's about all it would take. But the world is committed to a bespoke u-boot and device-tree per SKU, and most of the development industry have Stockholmed themselves into believing this is for the best. khm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-05-07 18:51 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-05-06 3:47 [9front] build iso from arm64 william 2022-05-06 15:34 ` ori 2022-05-07 3:31 ` william 2022-05-07 3:45 ` ori 2022-05-07 4:03 ` ori 2022-05-07 4:36 ` mkf9 2022-05-07 4:45 ` Kurt H Maier 2022-05-07 5:29 ` william 2022-05-07 13:51 ` Stanley Lieber 2022-05-07 15:14 ` Thaddeus Woskowiak 2022-05-07 18:49 ` Kurt H Maier
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).