Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 6.10 Adds Support For The RISC-V Milk-V Mars & More SoC Additions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Linux 6.10 Adds Support For The RISC-V Milk-V Mars & More SoC Additions

    Phoronix: Linux 6.10 Adds Support For The RISC-V Milk-V Mars & More SoC Additions

    Last week the main SoC/platform updates were sent in for Linux 6.10 that included more ARM-based handheld game consoles and other new Arm devices from ASUS wireless routers to set-top boxes to enabling various SoCs. This week a secondary set of updates were submitted for the Linux 6.10 kernel merge window...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    the milk-v mars is a ~$50+ usd risc-v sbc using the starfive jh7100
    jh7110.

    Comment


    • #3
      I wish more of these SBCs had two on-board Ethernet ports so it was more easy and convenient to use them as single box low power-draw routers.

      I fully understand that one can use a USB dongle, but that's not exactly neat and tidy - a single box low power-draw device would just be nice. It's a wish.

      But as my mother would say: "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

      I also wish the Kobol Helios64 NAS had not gone out of production.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Old Grouch View Post
        I wish more of these SBCs had two on-board Ethernet ports so it was more easy and convenient to use them as single box low power-draw routers.

        I fully understand that one can use a USB dongle, but that's not exactly neat and tidy - a single box low power-draw device would just be nice. It's a wish.

        But as my mother would say: "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

        I also wish the Kobol Helios64 NAS had not gone out of production.
        Yes it is annoying.
        Particularly since USB Ethernet devices are 96% horrible (driver issues, unclear details about chip ID / revision / errata / benchmarks / driver quality for buyers, kind of dead-end at 2.5 Gbps and single port vs PCIE attached options, ...).

        If one had enough back-end infrastructure to support it (switches, servers / routers, whatever) one could try to do a 1:N link multiplex / demultiplex over the single port NIC to the equivalent of multiple links via VLANs or independent tunnels / VPNs but that really defeats the point of "single small box, low power, ...." as compared to just using a desktop or box full of networking gear.


        Comment

        Working...
        X