[PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Michal Simek]

On 31. 03. 20 8:56, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 31/03/2020 à 07:30, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy at 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 at 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 at 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.

Thanks,
Michal