4 ms·
Windows doesn't have that issue on Arm, you can just boot the newest Windows on Arm release on a random SoC from the past that (if it's the same arch of course,
by my123 5y ago
Windows doesn't have that issue on Arm, you can just boot the newest Windows on Arm release on a random SoC from the past that (if it's the same arch of course, 32 bit or 64 bit have different drivers) as long as the work was initially done first.
For ACPI, the vendors themselves tend to avoid changing bindings between generations for Windows there. Compounded with a stable driver ABI, things continued to work stably within all of Windows Phone (NT based, 8.0 to 10)'s lifetime, which had security update support until December 2019.
Windows RT 8.1 still gets security updates today, and will continue to do so until January 2023.
Linux not managing to standardize on a proper driver ABI _or_ stable bindings with the drivers in the kernel tree is just a Linux problem, and doesn't even affect other kernels on the platform, which mandate ACPI or something else.
> There is completely unlike how x86 works where everything really is standardized and you don't need specific drivers operate every peripheral on the board
Nope, on x86, the meaty bits like the GPU and such do not have a stable register interface or anything remotely near that between generations. :)
On Arm systems, the interrupt controller (GICv2/3/4), timer (arch timer, since Cortex-A7/A15), IOMMUs (SMMU) and other standard devices were standardised since ages now (Apple is their own bubble and doesn't apply to this discussion). One of the remaining issues so far is PCIe hardware quirks/erratums, but that's getting solved.
But Qualcomm isn't interested in making their Linux drivers work with their ACPI definitions, they are stable between generations on Windows though, and not changed needlessly over there. (which allowed us to work to bring AArch64 Windows on the Lumia 950/950 XL using drivers from other SoCs too)
- google234123 5y agoLinux hasnt managed to standardize a proper driver ABI for political reasons - not technical.
- surajrmal 5y agoWhile you cherry picked examples that work for your arguments, I would say that they arent entirely correct. On x86, you can use a bounded number of drivers and boot successfully on a large number of boards. This is because things like buses, storage and display are standardized. This is not true for ARM. Every manufacturer does its own thing. Yes there are bits which have been standardized and shared, but for the most part that's not the case. As a result you cannot really make a single image that boots on a large number of boards without also including a very large number of drivers. Windows phone only ran on a limited number of SOCs, primarily Qualcomm. Also for what it's worth, Qualcomm does update their ACPI definitions between SoC generations. They also fork their drivers to match. If there was a stable driver ABI they could probably do the same on Linux but that's not an option. On server, ARM vendors went the PC route and just adopted standard interfaces used servers (pcie, sata, etc). This is large departure from SoCs targeting phones, tablets, and iot.
- my123 5y agoFor QCOM the bindings for the base drivers are stable, and despite them forking drivers, the one for the others generally are - too The biggest concern there is the PEP power management mechanism instead of using what ACPI provides. > This is because things like buses, storage and display are standardized That's a rosy view of x86. Quite some laptops ship with Intel RST set up such as stock Windows wouldn't boot on them before adding that driver. Display (frame buffer) is standardised too as UEFI GOP, but that no longer applies when the GPU driver takes over of course. Storage controllers & USB bindings are standardised too. Doing a Qualcomm driverless boot on those platforms is very much possible, with storage and USB available, enough to install the OS and make it reach the desktop. (and on a side note, as far back as the Snapdragon 810, PCIe was very much used. The Lumia 950 (XL) had their Wi-Fi controller over a PCIe bus.)
- surajrmal 5y agoLaptops are definitely trending in the same direction as smart phones, I will not contest that. However my main point is that it's all much more standardized. Booting the system to the point you can prompt the user to connect to the internet and download more drivers is much easier on x86. Qualcomm having "stable" bindings is a choice they've made. There is nothing forcing them to do that. The point is that they could not do that, because they know all images built for their phones will be specialized. Qualcomm may use PCIe for one off peripherals, but it is not the bus used for most peripherals.