From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lukma@denx.de (Lukasz Majewski) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 20:41:22 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v5 0/4] ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Add support for BK3 board In-Reply-To: References: <20171116232239.16823-1-lukma@denx.de> <20171211233625.5689-1-lukma@denx.de> <1513153607.2439.2.camel@Nokia-N900> Message-ID: <20171217204122.0a10a5e1@jawa> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Arnd, > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Alexander Sverdlin > wrote: > > On Wed Dec 13 08:34:22 2017 Linus Walleij > > wrote: > >> Arnd has been nudging me to do DT conversion for EP93xx > >> so if there are many active industrial users of these > >> I should prioritize it, because these things have 20+ years > >> support cycles. > > > > I'm not sure how important or necessary at all is to change > > anything in these legacy platforms. > > I suspect that at several points in the next 5 to 10 years, we will > remove additional platforms or CPU types, as we tend to do when a > platform becomes a maintenance burden and is clearly not used by > anyone. I suppose that at least the last argument is not the case here :-). > > It's hard to predict in advance what triggers the removal, but as the > number of platforms that are not using DT or ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM > goes down to a small number, there will be increased interested in > either removing or converting the remaining ones. This is not an > immediate danger at the moment, since we still have 14 platforms that > are not using ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM, and 23 that have remaining > board files, but you don't want to be the last user of the last > platform after the other ones are done ;-) :-) > > >> We also need to think about upholding support in GCC for > >> ARMv4(t) for the foreseeable future if there is a big web of > >> random deeply embedded systems out there that will need > >> updates. > > > > But we should definitely preserve at least what we have. > > Plain ARMv4 (and earlier) support in gcc is already marked > 'deprecated' and will likely be gone in gcc-8 (it's still there as of > last week). ARMv4T is going to be around for a while, and you can > even keep building for ARMv4 using "-march=armv4t -marm" when linking > with 'ld --fix-v4bx'. I think that we shall start complaining on the gcc-devel mailing list now. I would be hard to wake up in 2 years time and realise that we don't have a modern compiler. > > Debian recently did a survey to find out whether there were still > users on ARMv4 or ARMv4T, and the result was that probably everyone is > on ARMv5E or ARMv6 for the ARM port (which is separate from the > ARMHF port that is ARMv7+). See also > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/11/msg00379.html > and let them know quickly if you use Debian stable releases and > plan to update to Debian 10 (Buster) in the future. > > Arnd Best regards, Lukasz Majewski -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: