Le 31/03/2020 à 12:04, Michal Simek a écrit :
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@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.
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.
Nothing bad apparently, see build test at
http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/head/a4890e3fb046950e9a62dc3eff5b37469551e823/
Christophe
