News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware s... by gh02t on Thursday February 22, 2018 @05:45PM (#16442261)
It's not identical to the RPi 3. Raspberry Pi is using a Broadcom chip, this one is an Allwinner H5. They are similar, but at least the H5 has far better support in mainline Linux.

Still Mali, though. Which I totally agree is crap. And no drivers for other display types.

Re:Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware s... by stefan_ on Thursday February 22, 2018 @05:55PM (#16442332)
We were talking about the CPUs, and these are pretty identical. Both use quad ARM Cortex A53, the H5 has 100 MHz more top clock rate and is probably manufactured in a more modern process, but real-world performance isn't going to be much different.
Re:Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware s... by gh02t on Thursday February 22, 2018 @07:04PM (#16442840)
Performance wise they are very similar, but you mentioned upstream support. That is actually a major point of differentiation between the two.
Re:Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware s... by stefan_ on Thursday February 22, 2018 @07:19PM (#16442932)
Well, yes, the Raspberry Pi has much better upstream support. The biggest obvious issue being the Mali.
Re:Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware s... by gh02t on Thursday February 22, 2018 @07:44PM (#16443113)
I mean upstream support in the Linux kernel. The Allwinner chip is supported by the mainline kernel, the one in the Raspberry Pi is not. To me that's a big plus in its favor.

Also in terms of support by the creators, if they're serious about the 10 year commitment then I'd say actually that is better than Raspberry Pi. Mindshare in the maker community isn't that important to someone doing serious embedded hardware development for production as long as the company behind it is solid. Which kinda sucks, I wish there was more incentive for chipmakers like Broadcom to be more open but...

Re:Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware s... by stefan_ on Thursday February 22, 2018 @08:14PM (#16443320)
No offence, but I think you haven't been keeping up-to-date. The RPi is fully supported by the mainline kernel, most significantly, there is a full atomic DRM kernel driver for the VC4 GPU and corresponding Mesa userland, maintained by someone with transistor-level access to hardware documentation.

I have great appreciation for the work Maxime Ripard et al. have been doing on mainline support for the various Allwinner chips, hence why I kicked in a few bucks for their kickstarter on reverse-engineering the Allwinner VPU:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/bootlin/allwinner-vpu-s...

But lets not kid ourselves, none of this was Allwinners doing and they could not give a fuck about mainline Linux.

Re:Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware s... by gh02t on Thursday February 22, 2018 @08:24PM (#16443373)
Wow you're right, not sure how I missed that. Guess I just got too used to all those years of Broadcom chips being giant clusterfucks of patches and old kernels.
Re:Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware s... by pritambaral on Friday February 23, 2018 @08:26AM (#16446142)
> but at least the H5 has far better support in mainline Linux

Could you elaborate on this?

My experience has been that the BCM2710 (and the RPi 3 board, in general) has had better (and earlier) support in mainline than the Allwinner H5. A client of mine is shipping a product based on the RPi3 after evaluating both (including building their own H5 based board), because support for H5 on mainline was poor and lagging compared to the RPi3.

Re:Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware s... by KSS42 on Thursday February 22, 2018 @05:54PM (#16442327)
Mali 450 just won't die. Atleast it is not the Mali 400.