From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9E221A0274 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:05:25 +1000 (AEST) Message-ID: <1442484325.26748.7.camel@ellerman.id.au> Subject: Re: Time to remove platforms/cell? From: Michael Ellerman To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Geoff Levand Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:05:25 +1000 In-Reply-To: <7144823.dIR0EDXkmx@wuerfel> References: <1442467727.25483.0.camel@ellerman.id.au> <2023345.Irprl084gX@fb07-iapwap2> <7144823.dIR0EDXkmx@wuerfel> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 11:31 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 17 September 2015 10:43:39 Marc Dietrich wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, 17. September 2015, 15:28:47 schrieb Michael Ellerman: > > > Discuss ... > > > > as long as Geoff still maintains the ps3 port - why? > > > We already removed celleb a while ago, which was arguably the least > commonly used one. Hi Arnd, Thanks for the input, I probably should have CC'ed you, sorry! > Within platforms/cell, we have three separate portions that we need > to look at: > > a) Common ps3/ibm parts: spufs, oprofile > We should not remove them before we plan to also remove platforms/ps3 > support, which doesn't seem likely in the near term. We can move them > to platforms/ps3 if we decide to remove the rest. Right. I wouldn't bet money that the oprofile code still works, but spufs definitely would have to stay. > b) Support for IBM blades: > It is unlikely that there are QS20 blades still around and being used > at all, but there is very little code specific to them. Wasn't spider QS20 only? So that would be a bit of code that could go, including (some of) the io-workarounds code (I think). > For QS21/QS22, there are probably still a few in existence, but > I have no idea whether anybody would consider running a 4.x kernel > on them. There are also some customer-specific Cell machines that > are vaguely related to QS22 and that are in a similar state. > I don't mind removing the code, but if anybody is still using it > on new kernels, we should be prepared to put it back. Yeah, that's my impression. We obviously still have a QS22, but really we're only keeping it alive for testing purposes. Hopefully this email will bring some more folks out of the woodwork. > c) QPACE. We know who the three users were, and they have upgraded to > QPACE2 (based on Intel Xeon Phi) this year. Removing this would be > appreciated as it lets us clean up one of the ugly corners of the > 8250 uart driver. Ah excellent info. I had done some googling on QPACE and from the web site there is no suggestion that it's been shutdown, but I guess that's the nature of web pages, they tend not to get updated: http://www.fz-juelich.de/ias/jsc/EN/Expertise/Supercomputers/QPACE/QPACE_node.html So we can probably remove the QPACE code sooner rather than later, unless someone yells. cheers