Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 02/22/2018 07:45 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> Add blackfin to that list, there have been no responses from the >> maintainers last time I posted patches to remove DSA header files, so we >> had to go these through the networking tree. Have not see a Blackfin >> pull request since forever, Aaron himself seems to agree this should be >> removed: >> >> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1801.1/04345.html > > Peter Zijlstra also mentioned that one on IRC, I didn't have it on my radar > before. Like Tile, it has only recently been marked as Orphaned in MAINTAINERS, > so I'd be inclined to wait a little while to give possible users a > chance to step > up as new maintainers. > > My plan for v4.17 is now: > > - remove score, unicore and metag due to lack of toolchain > or interest from the maintainers. > - keep hexagon, and try to build an llvm/clang toolchain > - remove frv and m32r due to being abandoned for several years > - mark tile and blackfin for pending removal later this year unless > a new maintainer steps up > - mark mn10300 for pending removal unless it gets updated to > support chips that were made in the past 12 years and to build > properly. My frustration says please please please remove blackfin with sugar on top. If you look at the new unified siginfo.h you will notice that blackfin has the majority of conflicting si_code definitions. Given that I have already dealt with the frustrating situations I can wait a release or two. But even though I found a cross compiler for blackfin there is a real cost to keeping it in the tree. Eric
