On Thu, 26 Sept 2024 at 09:46, Esben Haabendal <esben@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Erez <erezgeva2@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Mon, 23 Sept 2024 at 18:19, Michael Walle <mwalle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > > > I would gladly remove the obsolete mx25l12805d. > >> > > Why? I don't see any need for that. > >> > Maybe because we do not want compatibility table? > >> > >> I don't get this? Anyway, we do not remove support for older > >> flashes for no reason. > > > > I did not insist, you asked. > > Macronix stopped selling these chips 15 year ago. > > How long do you want to support old chips? > > It is not unusual for embedded products to have a support span of more > than 20 years. And chips such as these flashes might not be entirely new > when the product is introduced. So dropping support for SPI-NOR flashes > that are newer than 25-30 years is definitely a risk. Somebody out there > might not be able to upgrade to latest kernel versions anymore, which is > not a position we should put anyone in. With the increasing pressure to > upgrade product for better security, we definitely should not make it > more difficult to run newer kernel versions than absolutely necessary. I do not insist. Nor send any patch in this direction. Each project can define the extent of backward compatibility. In terms of compilers, linkers and tools, i.e. build environment. In terms of standards like the C standard we use. In terms of network protocols. And also what Hardware do we support. There is no harm in asking where the boundaries are. All projects move their boundaries all the time. The Linux kernel is no exception. Erez > > /Esben
