On 31. 03. 20 11:49, Christophe Leroy wrote:
Le 31/03/2020 à 09:19, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
Le 31/03/2020 à 08:59, Michal Simek a écrit :
On 31. 03. 20 8:56, Christophe Leroy wrote:
Le 31/03/2020 à 07:30, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
Christophe Leroy christophe.leroy@c-s.fr writes:
Le 27/03/2020 à 15:14, Andy Shevchenko a écrit : > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 02:22:55PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:15 PM Andy Shevchenko >> andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 03:10:26PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 01:54:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:12 PM Michal Simek >>>>> michal.simek@xilinx.com wrote: > ... > >>>>> It does raise a follow-up question about ppc40x though: is it >>>>> time to >>>>> retire all of it? >>>> >>>> Who knows? >>>> >>>> I have in possession nice WD My Book Live, based on this >>>> architecture, and I >>>> won't it gone from modern kernel support. OTOH I understand that >>>> amount of real >>>> users not too big. >>> >>> +Cc: Christian Lamparter, whom I owe for that WD box. >> >> According to https://openwrt.org/toh/wd/mybooklive, that one is >> based on >> APM82181/ppc464, so it is about several generations newer than >> what I >> asked about (ppc40x). >> >>>> Ah, and I have Amiga board, but that one is being used only for >>>> testing, so, >>>> I don't care much. >> >> I think there are a couple of ppc440 based Amiga boards, but again, >> not 405 >> to my knowledge. > > Ah, you are right. No objections from ppc40x removal!
Removing 40x would help cleaning things a bit. For instance 40x is the last platform still having PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES. So if we can remove 40x we can get rid of PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES completely.
If no one objects, I can prepare a series to drop support for 40x completely.
Michael, any thought ?
I have no attachment to 40x, and I'd certainly be happy to have less code in the tree, we struggle to keep even the modern platforms well maintained.
At the same time I don't want to render anyone's hardware obsolete unnecessarily. But if there's really no one using 40x then we should remove it, it could well be broken already.
So I guess post a series to do the removal and we'll see if anyone speaks up.
Ok, series sent out, see https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=167757
ok. I see you have done it completely independently of my patchset. Would be better if you can base it on the top of my 2 patches because they are in conflict now and I need to also remove virtex 44x platform also with alsa driver.
I can't see your first patch, only the second one shows up in the series, see https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=167757
Ok, I found your first patch on another patchwork, it doesn't touch any file in arch/powerpc/
There was just driver dependency on symbol which is removed by 2/2. Let's see what you get from kbuild if any symbol is removed but still used in drivers folder.
I sent a v2 series with your powerpc patch as patch 2/11
See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=167766
Thanks, Michal