Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Remove some e300/MPC83xx evaluation platforms

[Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>]

"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2023, at 02:04, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>> 01/03/2023 (Wed 14:23) Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>> Le 28/02/2023 ?? 18:51, Arnd Bergmann a ??crit??:
>>> Hope it clarifies how those reference boards are used.
>>
>> It was really useful input and gave an insight into how things get used.
>>
>> But let me put a slightly different slant on things.  If there is no
>> maintainer for the platform/architecture/CPU, then where is the
>> obligation for mainline to keep it up to date just for your company to
>> use the code/BSP as a reference?
>>
>> Do they continue to do this for one more year, or three or ...  ???
>> Does someone list themselves in MAINTAINERS for arch/powerpc/83xx ?
> ...
>>
>> If you see change 0123abcdef breaks boot on your platform, you have a
>> legit voice to gripe about it right then and there.  Don't wait!!!
>
> I think the answer here is that Christophe is already the only person
> that does this, so he is the de-facto maintainer for ppc32 regardless
> of whether he wants himself listed in the file or not:

Yes he is the de-facto 32-bit maintainer :)

He's listed as a reviewer on the converged 64-bit/32-bit maintainers
entry which is meant to reflect that:

LINUX FOR POWERPC (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)
M:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
R:	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
R:	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
L:	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org

But we could add a separate 32-bit entry if people think that would make
things clearer.

Although I don't think we could run separate trees for 64-bit and
32-bit, there'd be too many conflicts, so in that way I think one entry
makes sense.

cheers