[PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Michal Simek]

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 at c-s.fr> 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 at linux.intel.com> 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 at xilinx.com> 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.

> 
> I sent a v2 series with your powerpc patch as patch 2/11
> 
> See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=167766

Thanks,
Michal