Talk:Raspberry Pi/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Non existent documentation for the GPU

The choice of Broadcom (BCM2835) products result in non-existent documentation as always. See this thread at raspberrypi.org. When the RE starts, please post a link to results. Electron9 (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you look at the last page of that thread? I would hardly call [ http://www.raspberrypi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BCM2835-ARM-Peripherals.pdf ] "non-existent documentation". There is also some supplemental material on the official Wiki: [ http://elinux.org/RPi_Low-level_peripherals ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Documentation for the GPU? do you have documentation for the GPU on the videocard in your PC? Probably not, and it only works because there is a "binary blob driver" from the chip manufacturer for windows, and perhaps for Linux for it. Documentation on how the innards of a graphics processor works are almost never released, not for the one in your ATI based videocard, and not for the GPU in the broadcom either. As they are considered a trade secret, also there is almost nothing you on your own could do with detailed knowledge about how the innards of the GPU work. Only a company with hundreds of highly trained employees could. Everything else, not related to graphics processing in the broadcom chip, is fully documented. Even the schematics of the Raspberry PI have recently been published. Mahjongg (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Even in the area of graphics processing, there is extensive documentation available about how to tell the GPU what to do, which is a lot more important than the internal GPU details. The BCM2835 supports OpenGL ES 2.0, which is really nice to work with. You can even buy the OpenGL ES 2.0 Programming Guide at Amazon.com ( http://www.amazon.com/OpenGL-ES-2-0-Programming-Guide/dp/0321502795 ). --Guy Macon (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know, but I think the OP was complaining about lack of documentation on the internal workings of the GPU, which reminded me of zealots who claim that a Linux computer with a standard graphics card isn't really a (open sourced) "linux computer" because the internal firmware in the video card isn't open sourced. Mahjongg (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What's missing is documentation that is sufficient to write a driver that will provide the same software API for other OS flavors as for Linux Feodora software. So the hardware-API is the required documentation. The internals of the GPU is not really that relevant, but hw-API is. Asfair many Intel-GPUs provide this. But it might have changed. Electron9 (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Intel GPUs have been a bit of a mixed bag:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAzOTI

But there are are some interesting developments on the Raspberry Pi / Linux front:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTA1MTc

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTA0OTQ

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=arm_mali_reverse&num=1

For those who are following along, it should be emphasized that we are talking about accelerated video. OpenGL ES 2.0 is more than sufficient to run X, Gnome, KDE, etc. Accelerated video is more of an issue if someone wants to write state-of-the-art games that take full advantage of the GPU. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Followup: there is a review at http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/pcs/2012/04/16/raspberry-pi-review/ that reports a noticeable performance hit while web browsing from the non-accelerated video, so it appears that it is more of an issue than I described above. --Guy Macon (talk)

Time for a Open Graphics Project style of project? ;-) Otoh, maybe a Mali (GPU) based board with a Lima driver would be feasible at a low price? It's desktop, video and 3D that I find important in that order. Locked drivers make moved between operating systems ports messy. And will usually brick hardware in the feature when new kernels will no longer work with old library-APIs. And bare hardware assembler demos will also be f-cked. Electron9 (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes having those API's would be nice, but at the moment the list of devices that publish their Video Acceleration API's is a very short list of very low end devices who's manufacturers have nothing much too lose from revealing the details of their (older) hardware to the competition, all the more important manufacturers do not reveal any such details about their hardware, and expect software to use the supplied drivers. But who knows, many people supposed that there never would be schematics for the raspberry PI, as they were not needed for understanding and using the device, and relevant questions were usually answered by people in the know (like the trip value of some of the polyfuses used, etc), but still now we have a complete schematic (only the interface to the top POP RAM chip isn't revealed, but there isn't much that you can do with that). A similar situation exists with the video API, but people who have used it (from the RPF) had to sign a non disclosure statement, so I would not have too high hopes of them revealing the API. nevertheless there is talk of such people having enough access to the API to write accelerated video/2D drivers, and other drivers they have made have not been tied to one single variant of Linux, (or for that matter the OS itself) so it doesn't seem too much of a problem. All this is a very similar situation to the larger bulk of video hardware that is out there. Mahjongg (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

GPU firmware

Is the firmware image some kind of FPGA image, or CPU/DSP code? and what's the status on redistribution rights of that binary file? Electron9 (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's comparable with the firmware of any other video card, it's the code the GPU (which is a vector processing unit) runs to create 2D and 3D images. On Video cards its mostly stored in very fast RAM directly coupled with the GPU, and is normally partly loaded from an on-board flash, containing the "Video BIOS" which contains elementary stuff like fonts so that even without an OS the videocard can display a (text based) image, and later more code is uploaded from storage for doing vector calculations.

As without the "blob" the GPU has nothing to run, AFAIK it is an indivisible part of the "video generator", so if you own the hardware (the SoC, including the GPU) you also have the right to use the "blob". The GPU is worthless without it, and the "blob" is worthless without the GPU.

The only difference between a normal videocard and the GPU is that the latter is much more integrated with the whole SoC (shares memory with it), and the GPU doesn't have a "VideoBIOS" as such, but only a small CPU (yes, a third CPU, after the ARM, and the vector processor) that is tied to a very small ROM containing code that loads the "blob" into the GPU from the SD-card, part of that code is code for the ARM CPU who boots with it, and loads the rest of the code into normal RAM and executes it. So the GPU is also used for booting the system. In fact the SoC is nothing more than a GPU that can boot itself, with an ARM CPU attached to it. For more info you can ask questions on the R-PI forum. Mahjongg (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Block diagram

this block diagram, on the right:

Block diagram

is a bit confusing in that the block marked ethernet actually functions as a USB hub with three USB ports to which one of them the actual USB Ethernet adapter is connected. it Is true that the hub, and the USB ethernet adapter are integrated into a single chip, (the LAN9512) but the block diagram as drawn doesn't make sense. Mahjongg (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect from "Raspi"

Hi, not sure if I'm remembering wrong, but I thought there used to be a redirect from "raspi" to this article.
If not, should there be? Seems to be a common shortening. 118.209.10.121 (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you thinking of RasPiRasPi? -- Trevj (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I just checked all the redirects to this page for errors (many had no categories) and added a few. The list of titles that redirect here is now:

R-pi
RASPI
RasPi
Raspi
RaspPi
RaspBerry Pi
Raspberry pi
RaspBerryPi
RaspberryPi
Raspberrypi
Raspberyy Pi
Rasberry Pi
Rasberry pi
Razberry Pi
Razberry pi
(15 redirects)

"Raspberyy Pi" was already there and isn't worth the bother of removing it, but I avoid redirects for things like that. Let the "Did you mean: Raspberry Pi?" system take care of those. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Raspberyy PiRaspberyy Pi, I got pissed off with mistyping it more than once! -- Trevj (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Arch Linux ARM vs Arch Linux

There currently is no Arch Linux ARM article, a project *completely* separate from Arch Linux. Do not "fix" the "Arch Linux ARM" links by making them redirect to the Arch Linux article. Make the article if it bugs you that much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buhman (talk • contribs) 15:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent idea, I have done exactly that. No bugs were hurt in the process. Mahjongg (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I like it; much better; thank you very much Buhman (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

AROS

When is somebody going to add AROS as a planned operating system choice for Raspberry Pi? In-Correct (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source mentioning the porting of AROS to the Raspberry PI? The standard version will never work as its written in x86 code. Mahjongg (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Intro is written like a sales pitch

"The device also features proprietary high performance video and graphic capability as well as a low price at currently 25 USD for model A and 35 USD for model B, taxes apply."

Please, someone rewrite this in a more convenient manner, the whole intro block is written like a sales pitch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.207.243.112 (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't see the problem, the sentence is factual and lists relevant and defining points. Mahjongg (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, well I've taken it out now (didn't refresh this talk page before editing). -- Trevj (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Side by side object comparison photo

Somebody please post a everyday life object vs Raspberry Pi photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.138.93.242 (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

One original promo photo (used historically here) included a British 20p pence. This isn't much use to the rest of the world, so a credit card would be a good choice of replacement IMO. I'll do this when mine arrives, unless someone beats me to it. -- Trevj (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

An "everyday item" is likely to depend on a specific country or culture. I suggest putting a ruler marked in mm and inches next to the RPi board. It's informative and likely to be understood by more people in the world than even a credit card. --Ds13 (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're still interested, I took a pic with a 50 pence, 50 €cent and a quarter dollar coin... Ideeman1994 (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Rastrack Raspberry Pi Tracker map

This map (created by Ryanteck) has been recently included and removed from the 'External links' section here. The Foundation's blog post has also been used as a source for the number of units shipped (although the figure of 20,000 wasn't derived from the map). I see a few issues:

1. The existence of the map itself is IMO of legitimate encyclopedic interest, and could be included (perhaps under #Community) per the blog source - but a direct external link is another matter
2. That Foundation blog post about the map's existence has been picked up by a news aggregator but there doesn't seem to be any sort of stated editorial policy there, so that's not exactly WP:RS
3. The map is obviously developed with good intentions but relies on people's goodwill (much as Wikipedia itself does, ironically) - however, presumably there are no means of verifying the data, e.g. cross-referencing to the suppliers - therefore, it can't be used (on its own) as a reliable source on which to base future edits
4. Additionally, we do know that back in April 2012 there were 350,000 pre-orders (or, more likely pre-orders and "expressions of interest", although that's WP:OR).

Thoughts? -- Trevj (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you have it right; it's an interesting and unreliable map. I think WP:USERGENERATED is the relevant guideline here. Those are user-generated map entries, self-published to a personal web site without any claimed editorial checking or verifying. So it's is definitely not a reliable source for any statistics. Even if reliable secondary sources (i.e. not the Foundation) were to promote and write about the map, it will not make the map's statistics reliable. That's my $0.25. --Ds13 (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Declaration by Trevj

With this edit, I'm adding a mention of the Raspberry Jams. I have a potential conflict of interest in this area, and declare that I have exchanged correspondence with O'Donohoe, and met him in person at a recent Raspberry Jam. I have been involved in the organisation of the Bristol Raspberry Jam. I always seek to ensure that my edits are neutral and non-promotional, and I trust that the community will remove/amend them in accordance with our policies if this is found not to be the case. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Raspbmc - Single-purpose light distributions

Raspbmc is based on Raspian and can be used as normal linux distribution. I have it installed on my Pi and also installed some additional packages (Samba PDC, Compilers, etc.) So I don't think it's a single-purpose distribution, just preconfigured for XBMC :) --Moritz94 (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The RPi "supercomputer"

Hi. Several times now, I have removed content showcasing the "supercomputer" recently made from a cluster of Raspberry Pis. Let me explain my rationale.

1. its not a "supercomputer" by any common criteria
2. it's not notably powerful for either price or size
3. MPI & the tools used to create this can be run on anything that runs Linux; there is nothing particularly Raspberry Pi flavoured about this

And, as I stated previously, I think it's a neat project. But there are hundreds of neat RPi projects now. The external links section cannot support them all. New ones every day. Shall we report many of them? I suggest we can't and shouldn't because this is a general purpose Linux computer, so common Linux projects are expected. Thoughts? --Ds13 (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In other words, it's WP:UNDUE to mention this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

External links

There seem to be a rather a lot of external links, many of which seem not to pass WP:EL. Including some unofficial links, the justification seems to be that the foundation recognises (or similar) them but surely that has no basis here? This page is not run or maintained by the foundation and is completely separate. Яehevkor ✉ 07:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Despite me agreeing with you, (for instance BCM2835 could redirect to VideoCore#VideoCore ICs where it is EXT linked, and distributors are already internally linked IMHO), this has previously been discussed Talk:Raspberry Pi/Archive 3#External links, where 1. the consensus was to keep 2. I failed badly! Widefox; talk 14:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Notes to CPU/GPU split

Within today, there are a various of splits possible, with those CPU/GPU splits: 128/384 - 192/320 - 224/288 - 240/272 - 256/256 - 384/128 - 448/64 - 496/16 -- source: https://github.com/raspberrypi/firmware/tree/master/boot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.245.147.81 (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

half these splits are for the older 256 MB model, they would work on the new 512 MB model, but half of the memory would then simply be ignored! Which has a use (checking compatibility with older models), but not for normal use. Mahjongg (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The RPF has modified the bootcode so that it now no longer uses a fixed memory split, but reads a new entry in config.txt, and dynamically splits of an amount of RAM for the GPU, regardless of how much memory the PI has. Mahjongg (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Coverage of GPU driver controversy

I have deleted the paragraph covering the GPU driver open sourcing controversy because I find it to be misleading -- apparently written with a misunderstanding of the criticism from the open source side.

This move has been interpreted by the open source movement as "open sourcing the GPU firmware"

No. What they're saying is that this "driver" doesn't contain any useful bits -- the useful bits of what generally constitute a "driver" are not part of the release -- they are actually hidden deep in the firmware. This is addressed in the original Dave Airlie's blog post: http://airlied.livejournal.com/76383.html

The rest of the paragraph continues to bash said "open source movement" for being silly enough to demand firmware code.

Some other points:

• Don't attribute criticism to vague actors like "the open source movement", be more specific and say "X.org developers" or "Dave Airlie". See WP:WEASEL
• Don't cite Phoronix per WP:RS -- it's very frequently discredited for posting incomplete and misleading articles ([1] [2]) These kinds of stories have earned them a moniker of "Moronix". And heaven forbid, don't cite the Phoronix user forum as a reliable source.

-- intgr [talk] 09:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason I added the quote from the announcement is to avoid this sort of argument. Let's stick to easily verifiable, reliable material (i.e. what the Foundation actually said). For another quote: "As of right now, all of the VideoCore driver code which runs on the ARM is available under a FOSS license (3-Clause BSD to be precise)." In context of the complete announcement, this is pretty clear. Everything that runs on the ARM, including the GPU "driver" (however basic that happens to be), is open source. This isn't contradicted by the existence of non-free firmware that runs on the GPU. Almost all computers have some proprietary firmware running on some chip or other. It's not ideal from the community's perspective but it doesn't make the announcement a lie -- JRYon (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what I said. The coverage of RasPi Foundation's announcement itself was OK. I didn't delete that.

I had issue with the following paragraph about the criticism from some OSS developers, which was initially added by 86.10.52.21 and updated by Mahjongg. (diff) -- intgr [talk] 16:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No I'm not misunderstanding you. I was expressing support for your decision as I smell a potential edit war brewing. Sorry I didn't make that clear. JRYon (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see now what you mean. Thanks :) -- intgr [talk] 19:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the best course of action would be to wait until (and if) a real news source (secondary source) covers this that presents both viewpoints, so we have something solid to cite. -- intgr [talk] 19:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur with intgr. This is a topic that is well worth covering in this article, but right now the topic is too much like late-breaking news and is not yet a stable topic suitable for an encyclopedia. See What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

((nod)) Criticism duly noted. I've removed the primary source and cited Ars Technica instead. That article also mentions the controversy. JRYon (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Programming languages

Further to this 10-month old thread, shouldn't we include #Programming languages or similar? This question has been prompted by learning that SpecBAS (a derivative of Sinclair BASIC) is available. There must be numerous RSes referring to various languages. Perhaps previous concerns regarding undue weight and listcruft could be reconsidered in light of subsequent reporting. The information could be included as prose. I consider which langauges people are reported as using as being valid encyclopedic information which should be given due weight. -- Trevj (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The list would be too long as there are varioous operating system avaliable each of which has multiple languages available. -Racklever (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If the list becomes too long, then it can always be spun out. I think that if current momentum is maintained, then more and more RSes will be writing about programming on the RPi. It could be the case that Programming on the Raspberry Pi becomes a notable term in its own right in the future. This obviously wouldn't be a how-to, but perhaps more a summary of the reasons various people use different languages, environments, etc. That would be premature now but I still feel it's of encyclopedic value to include some such info on languages at this stage. -- Trevj (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The list of programming languages is specific to eaxh operating system (or Linix distribution) and has nothing to do with the Raspberry Pi itself.--Racklever (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. An alternative could be to include RPi stuff within an article such as programming language, but that would be undue unless the same were to be done for other hardware (not really appropriate and a maintenance headache). And, as you say, it depends (partly) on the OS used. The RPi is currently of a low-ish specification (GPU excepted) and so programming it (including interfacing via add-on boards etc.) can have some specific considerations. I still maintain that mentioning programming languages within Raspberry Pi would give it the due weight it deserves. Anyway, I'm not a programmer so perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick and so will shut up for now. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There's also the issue that some languages (most obviously Processing & Python) are being emphasised by the Pi community. No doubt it would be possible to have a Pi running Fortran, but no-one is doing that credibly, nor does it belong in any such list. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion involving this page at [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]]. The thread is User:121.72.121.67 reported by User:Guy Macon. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)