On 31. 03. 20 8:56, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > 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 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
