From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <4339104E.7050705@intracom.gr> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:26:38 +0300 From: Pantelis Antoniou MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Heikki Lindholm References: <17208.37250.577664.621993@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20050927082324.GA11437@lst.de> <17209.817.732159.375607@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <43390DDC.7090701@cs.helsinki.fi> In-Reply-To: <43390DDC.7090701@cs.helsinki.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: Starting the arch/powerpc merge List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Heikki Lindholm wrote: > Paul Mackerras kirjoitti: > >> Christoph Hellwig writes: >> >> >>> What about just dropping POWER3/4 support in 32bit mode? >> >> >> >> Yes... I'm getting very close to deciding to do that. In fact POWER3 >> isn't too bad, since it still has BATs, but POWER4/PPC970 would be >> tricky. >> >> Does anyone on these lists have any major objections if we drop >> support for 32-bit kernels on POWER3 and POWER4/PPC970? > > > I think it was Kumar Gala who already asked this a while ago. For me, > 32-bit kernel on a 970 has been useful "initial stage" of gradually > porting kernel stuff over to real 64-bit, but if I'm the only user and > keeping the support is a nuisance, go ahead and drop it. > > -- Heikki Lindholm Count me in too; using a 970 in 32 bit mode, because of gentoo X.org problems in 64 bit mode. Regards Pantelis