On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 10:51:55PM +0900, Yoshinori Sato wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 00:38:21 +0900, > Rich Felker wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 08:25:20PM +0900, Yoshinori Sato wrote: > > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 00:48:09 +0900, > > > Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:28 PM Rich Felker <dalias@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 02:50:01PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > don't build, or are incomplete and not worked on for a long > > > > > > time, compared to the bits that are known to work and that someone > > > > > > is still using or at least playing with. > > > > > > I guess a lot of the SoCs that have no board support other than > > > > > > the Hitachi/Renesas reference platform can go away too, as any products > > > > > > based on those boards have long stopped updating their kernels. > > > > > > > > > > My intent here was always, after getting device tree theoretically > > > > > working for some reasonable subset of socs/boards, drop the rest and > > > > > add them back as dts files (possibly plus some small drivers) only if > > > > > there's demand/complaint about regression. > > > > > > > > Do you still think that this is a likely scenario for the future though? > > > > > > > > If nobody's actively working on the DT support for the old chips and > > > > this is unlikely to change soon, removing the known-broken bits earlier > > > > should at least make it easier to keep maintaining the working bits > > > > afterwards. > > > > > > > > FWIW, I went through the SH2, SH2A and SH3 based boards that > > > > are supported in the kernel and found almost all of them to > > > > be just reference platforms, with no actual product ever merged. > > > > IIRC the idea back then was that users would supply their > > > > own board files as an add-on patch, but I would consider all the > > > > ones that did to be obsolete now. > > > > > > > > HP Jornada 6xx is the main machine that was once supported, but > > > > given that according to the defconfig file it only comes with 4MB > > > > of RAM, it is unlikely to still boot any 5.x kernel, let alone user > > > > space (wikipedia claims there were models with 16MB of RAM, > > > > but that is still not a lot these days). > > > > > > > > "Magicpanel" was another product that is supported in theory, but > > > > the google search showed the 2007 patch for the required > > > > flash storage driver that was never merged. > > > > > > > > Maybe everything but J2 and SH4(a) can just get retired? > > > > > > > > Arnd > > > > > > I also have some boards, so it's possible to rewrite more. > > > I can not rewrite the target I do not have, so I think that > > > there is nothing but to retire. > > > > To clarify, are you agreeing with Arnd's suggestion to retire/remove > > everything but jcore and sh4[a]? > > > > Rich > > I have SH2/2A/3 target board. > So can mantain CPU support. > But with board support it will be difficult. > I would like to make the transition to a common framework. > I also have to fix the parts that depend on each board for migration, > so I would like to limit the target for maintenance to only those > that can be used now. Do you still have a working version of your device tree patches that applies to current kernel? If not, could I post the forward-ported versions I have right now (they're not up to current kernel but newer) for you to take a look and see what might be wrong? Your original version with the kernel version it applied to worked, but my forward-port one doesn't. PCI is crashing during boot with the qemu-emulated board, so I can't get disks or network, and I eventually got frustrated trying to fix it and set it aside. Rich
