On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 09:38:05PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2024, at 19:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 12:31 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > It's all other way around (from SW point of view). For unknown reasons > > Intel decided to release only 32-bit SW and it became the only thing > > that was heavily tested (despite misunderstanding by some developers > > that pointed finger to the HW without researching the issue that > > appears to be purely software in a few cases) _that_ time. Starting > > ca. 2017 I enabled 64-bit for Merrifield and from then it's being used > > by both 32- and 64-bit builds. > > > > I'm totally fine to drop 32-bit defaults for Merrifield/Moorefield, > > but let's hear Ferry who might/may still have a use case for that. > > Ok. I tried to find the oldest Android image and saw it used a 64-bit > kernel, but that must have been after your work then. I stand up corrected, what I said is related to Merrifield, Moorefield may have 64-bit users on the phones from day 1, though. ... > Changed now to > > The only supported devices are the 22nm Merrified (Z34xx) and > Moorefield (Z35xx) SoC used in the Intel Edison board and > a small number of Android devices such as the Asus Zenfone 2, > Asus FonePad 8 and Dell Venue 7. LGTM, thanks! ... > >> - Intel MID platforms are based on an Intel processor and chipset which > >> - consume less power than most of the x86 derivatives. > > > > Why remove this? AFAIK it states the truth. > > It seemed irrelevant for users that configure the kernel. I've > put it back now. It might be, but it was already there. Thanks for leaving it untouched. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
