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

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 31/03/2020 à 12:04, Michal Simek a écrit :
> 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.

Nothing bad apparently, see build test at 
http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/head/a4890e3fb046950e9a62dc3eff5b37469551e823/

Christophe