I do know that you do not like my comment that 32bit on Pi4 is much more efficient than 64 Bit ... Linadmin
On 17.08.22 11:47, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 10:29 PM Ard Biesheuvel <a...@kernel.org> wrote: >> Thanks for chiming in. >> >> At this point, it is really up to the maintainers to decide whether >> the maintenance burden is worth it. The code itself seems pretty >> uncontroversial afaict. >> >> Might other distros be in a similar situation? Or is this specific to Debian? > My guess is that this is the most prominent on Debian: Many others including > have discontinued or reduced support for 32-bit builds across architectures: > Ubuntu only supports "Core" with fewer packages on Raspberry Pi 2 but > not desktop or server, Opensuse Leap and Tumbleweed both distributes a > lot of board specific images but you have to know where to look as the main > page only advertises amd64/i686/arm64/ppc64le/s390x, Fedora stopped > entirely. > > Android may be an interesting distro here: there are still a lot of phones > running a pure 32-bit userland on Cortex-A53/A55 CPUs, and there are a > large number of applications built for this. As far as I can tell, they tend > to > run 32-bit kernels as well, but that is not going to work on newer processors > starting with Cortex-A76 big cores or Cortex-A510 little cores. > > archlinuxarm supports 32-bit and 64-bit machines equally, but they > apparently avoid the build service problem by using distcc with > x86-to-arm cross compilers, and they don't seem to support > their 32-bit images on 64-bit hardware/kernel. > > https://hub.docker.com/search?q=&source=verified&type=image&architecture=arm&image_filter=official > lists 98 "official" arm32 images plus countless ones in other categories. > I think these are popular in memory-constrained cloud hosting > setups on arm64, so the Alpine based images are probably the most > interesting ones because of their size, but they would run under > someone else's kernel. > > Arnd >
