Re: Getting a stable MAC address for a RPI CM3+ with ue0 interface

On Sep 20, 2023, at 15:46, George Mitchell <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 9/20/23 16:09, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>>> Am 20.09.2023 um 22:02 schrieb Mike Karels <[email protected]>:
>>> [...] [quoting someone else who said:] >>> I though that the Pi was *the* aarch64 platform,
>>>> at least in numbers ...
>>> 
>>> In numbers, probably.  In support, no.
>> Puzzled - which platform is?
>> [...]
> I sort of asked this question on the mailing list last year [I asked,
> "Which ARM platform will give the least angst for a FreeBSD user?"]
> and the consensus then seemed to be the RockPRO 64.      -- George

Here is my guess relative to some of the tier-1 status properties
(or what some try to read into a tier-1 classification):

A) Booted via ACPI instead of Device Tree might be required in
   order to have a more full tier-1 status. ACPI use may not be
   sufficient on its own.

B) Booted via Device Tree might never have as full of a tier-1
   status.

There are likely questions about the ACPI version/vintage and
variations (such as Microsoft oddities). For example, if I
understand right, the 2022(?) "IORT RMR" ACPI addition may not
be supported in any FreeBSD (yet?).

For small aarch64 boards, "least angst" is likely not the same
as what is read into "tier-1". "least angst" is more like
having more overall, interested software development activity
compared to other small aarch64 boards.


===
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com