Prepare hardware archetype for FreeBSD 14
Details
Details
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- R9 FreeBSD doc repository
- Lint
Lint Not Applicable - Unit
Tests Not Applicable
Event Timeline
| website/archetypes/release/hardware.adoc | ||
|---|---|---|
| 34 | This leaves out Intel. The old text explained the difference, which is probably not necessary, but should probably include both explicitly (AMD and Intel, or vice versa). | |
| 91 | There is an approved review removing OMAP4 support, which is broken. I don't know the details. | |
| 372 | Strange spacing (tab?) before Elastic. | |
| 507 | iwlwifi is pending for 14.0; hopefully it will be merged soon. rtw88 will probably not be in default configurations, and may or may not work. | |
| website/archetypes/release/hardware.adoc | ||
|---|---|---|
| 32 | Note that we use the short names (like amd64) to tag arch-specific drivers further down, so I think it is actually important to signpost that in some way. Probably keeping the high level names here as the short names is the clearest way to do that. | |
| 34 | Yes, this must mention Intel to avoid confusion. Probably also worth mentioning x86-64 in some way as well. I think saying Tier 1 explicitly is also still important. I'm also not sure that the language "latest release" is very future proof. All of the release notes are implicitly about a specific release, so I would maybe avoid that wording that I think can be confusing. I would suggest this for the first paragraph: FreeBSD supports the AMD64 ("Hammer") and Intel(R) EM64T architectures. AMD64 (also known as x86-64) is a fully-supported Tier 1 architecture. AMD64 supports all modern x86 processors. | |
| 132 | We need to signpost very loudly for 14.0 about i386 being deprecated. I realize this is the template and not yet the 14.0 copy, but it might be worth saying it here. In fact, I would use stronger language that says i386 is supported for this release, but users should move x86 installations to AMD64 as i386 kernel support will be removed in 15.0. | |
| 196 | For example, here we are using the "amd64" and "i386" tags, and we need to be clear what those mean. Previously using these exact labels for the section headers for platforms is how we did that. | |
Comment Actions
When uploading with the Phabricator web interface please include full context, e.g. git show -U999999 <hash>
| website/archetypes/release/hardware.adoc | ||
|---|---|---|
| 15 | Is the intent to have this committed as X and switch it to 14/15/etc. when we release? | |
| 23 | I think this was fine as one paragraph? | |
| 32 | Right, we call it FreeBSD/amd64. | |
| 40 | note that arm64 is tier-1, 32-bit arm is tier-2. I don't think it makes sense to include 32- and 64-bit arm in one section. | |
| 137 | This is very outdated - we should get one of the power folks (e.g. @jhibbits) to provide some up-to-date text | |
| 196 | I removed sparc64 from the 13.x notes (as it was already removed before those releases) in 90d7c2b07ff101c9573942b87bba955a4d4ace58. IMO we can apply that change to the template separately in advance of these other changes - I can do that, if you agree. | |
| website/archetypes/release/hardware.adoc | ||
|---|---|---|
| 137 | Wow, that really is dated, by several years and 2 major versions. Here's some new text, format it as you will: Many PowerPC platforms are supported, including but not limited to:
| |
| website/archetypes/release/hardware.adoc | ||
|---|---|---|
| 507 | Yes, rtw88 is included, and builds as a module for amd64/i386/aarch64. iwlwifi has been updated. | |
| website/archetypes/release/hardware.adoc | ||
|---|---|---|
| 40 | Effectively, yes, although I'm not sure if we want to use the FreeBSD arch names (e.g. armv7, arm64) or say 32-bit Arm and 64-bit Arm | |
| website/archetypes/release/hardware.adoc | ||
|---|---|---|
| 32 | I still think we want the FreeBSD architecture names somewhere, maybe in parentheses after the prose? If so, I would reuse the "platform name" field we use on the existing platforms.adoc page, so for amd64 use "64-bit x86 (amd64)". | |
| 34 | This still doesn't mention Intel or x86-64? The second sentence also seems somewhat redundant with the first? | |
| 40 | I would use "64-bit ARM (aarch64)" and "32-bit ARM (armv6, armv7)" per my comment above. | |
| 132 | The language here does seem redundant. I would maybe drop the last sentence entirely. | |
| website/archetypes/release/hardware.adoc | ||
|---|---|---|
| 135–144 | Thanks for adding this. Unfortunately we can't claim to support the Beagle-V, I'll spare you the long and boring explanation. There are a few new emerging riscv boards that people will probably have questions about, so I'll need to go update the wiki. Should we include a link to the wiki here? | |