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

[Christophe Leroy]

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

Christophe