RPi4 VS Flatcar

Correct. It does not as shipped. However, the use of this project will bring the firmware into system ready spec, so it can boot with a standard aarch64 UEFI image: https://github.com/pftf/RPi4

are you using the uefi firmware from https://github.com/pftf/RPi4 or are you trying to boot through the gpio serial header?I don't think the pi can boot on its own through uboot unless your using a serial/usb connection

Looks like you can use Grub on UEFI ARM systems, but Raspberry Pi isn't natively running UEFI. https://github.com/pftf/RPi4

The rpi4 has uefi firmware available, this allows you to boot any generic uefi aarch64 image, you no longer need rpi specific images.

https://github.com/pftf/RPi4

Straight out of the box, the image wouldn't boot, said that start.elf was invalid, so I went to https://github.com/pftf/RPi4/releases as suggested in the Readme.md file in the EFI partition. I installed that (version 1.34) over the existing EFI partition and tried again. That booted up the kernel, but it apparently died when it enabled the interrupt controller. The last messages are about armgic0.

Maybe similar discussion on github:

You can use these firmware images for UEFI as well as install with the arm ISO. I didn't have graphics acceleration that way, but it might be an easy fix.

I'm guessing these are not SystemReady certified with UEFI firmware and require "bespoke" preinstalled arm images?

https://www.arm.com/architecture/system-architectures/system...

https://developer.arm.com/documentation/102677/0100/UEFI-req...

I have three SystemReady arm devices and it's pretty awesome to be able to just boot an aarch64 live ISO and install. The experience is the same for running vms via ESXi arm edition.

Nvidia Jetson AGX Xavier - https://developer.nvidia.com/embedded/downloads#?search=uefi

Honeycomb LX2 - https://github.com/SolidRun/lx2160a_uefi

RPI4 - https://github.com/pftf/RPi4

It can be tedious building/provisioning the firmware but once complete they are ready for any aarch64 uefi iso.

What is annoying however is when distros don't ship an aarch64 uefi iso - but instead choose to build a zillion device specific "preinstalled" arm images. (looking at you manjaro)

The list of supported devices for ESXi arm edition is a great place to start for identifying options and is constantly updated.

https://flings.vmware.com/esxi-arm-edition

  Raspberry-Pi-4

The only reason why I am was trying to build the image was because I wanted to move stuff as mainline as possible and was worried that any installation made with the help of RPi4 UEFI firmware would stop booting after a while.

Most ARM hardware is cellphones, raspberry pi and the Mac M1, which certainly aren't that type.

But a lot of ARM hardware is that type. The keywords are SBSA / SBBR / SystemReady. If your hardware is SBBR compatible then Fedora and Ubuntu's ARM64 iso, and Windows ARM64, downloaded from their website, will at least boot fine (drivers are a different question as always).

There's a good list of supported hardware in the lower half of https://community.arm.com/arm-community-blogs/b/architecture... . Many systems from Avantek, Gigabyte, NXP, Marvell, Solidrun etc are standardizing on this way of booting.

DeviceTree is low-level enough that you can implement UEFI on top of it. There's a UEFI port for the Raspberry Pi 4 at https://rpi4-uefi.dev/ that produces an SBBR layer, allowing it to boot any off-the-shelf ARM64 SBBR distro.

Sounds like you're looking for the CoreOS Linux successor FlatCar https://www.flatcar.org/

It's actually based on some ChromeOS update tools under the hood but is a regular Linux distro, just super minimal and designed to run containers.

I guess if you found my comment to be "comically hyperbolic" then replying to mine with a "comically reductionist" is fair game

So, anyway, I actually did dig up a concrete example of my experience with it, and I cannot link to the "Additional information" section but that is both why I think the thing was a mess and also why the Miroservices YT joke resonated: https://github.com/flatcar/Flatcar/issues/220

I think the CoreOS boot strategy was decomposed into a bunch of different executables, each responsible for doing their own little slice of the world. Maybe it drew inspiration from systemd in that way. But, just like my real life experience with microservices, it requires keeping a bunch of different projects and their upgrade paths in ones head, knowing their disparate config formats, and when one of them inevitably has a bug, understanding how to troubleshoot what went wrong with the system as a whole

And, again in trying to be reasonable in this discussion[1] I do also understand why one would opt for the data URI, given how much of the rest of Ignition loads content from URLs. I don't believe cloud-init has that remote content paradigm baked into in nearly the same way, so I hear you about that.

And yes, my belief is that JSON is a data-exchange format from _computer to computer_ and making people write them is a poor DX choice, IN MY OPINION. And, to reiterate, I know that CoreOS's perspective is that it is a computer-to-computer transmission from the transpiler-project-o-the-day to the Ignition binary, but that is predicated on one having access to that transpiler binary in all cases, which is quite different from the problem that cloud-init is trying to solve

fn-1: I'm sorry you got hurt by my "tire fire" outburst, and that evidently derailed this whole interaction, but it was my experience