Le 31/03/2020 à 07:30, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
While we are at it, can we also remove the 601 ? This one is also full
of workarounds and diverges a bit from other 6xx.
I'm unable to find its end of life date, but it was on the market in
1994, so I guess it must be outdated by more than 10-15 yr old now ?
Christophe
