From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lukma@denx.de (Lukasz Majewski) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:18:48 +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> <20171213095257.5cf424fb@jawa> Message-ID: <20171220141848.3f7c49c4@jawa> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Linus, > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Lukasz Majewski > wrote: > >> On Wed Dec 13 08:34:22 2017 Linus Walleij > >> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Lukasz Majewski > >> > wrote: Out of curiosity: Liebherr is obviously doing heavy-duty > >> > industrial control systems. Likewise Hartley is doing similar > >> > business over at Vision Engravings. > >> > > >> > Is the situation such that there is a whole bunch of industrial > >> > systems out there, in active use and needing future upgrades, > >> > that use the EP93xx? > >> > >> That's definitely the case. I'm as well aware of several thousands > >> of industrial devices which are expected to run 24/7 for the next 5 > >> years at least. And they are updated from time to time. > > > > I can agree with this statement. > > OK I'm coloring this platform with a highlight for ARM32 maintenance. > > >> > 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. > > > > +1 > > That is an understandable conservative stance. > > There is a fine line between "it works, don't touch it" and > "modernize the ARM32 ecosystem". There may be a more pragmatic reason. If those boards are deployed (widely) in the industry - there may be a problem with re-validation of the SW. > > There is a point where supporting old board files will stand in > the way and cost a lot in maintenance (like moving drivers our > of arch/arm, or modernizing misc subsystems). Then moving the > platform over to device tree should be preferred. With my limited experience - those platforms have more similarities to x86. Multiplatform may be the goal here.... > > > I'm using OE to build toolchain (SDK). I can confirm that gcc 7.2 > > works with it. > > > > And yes, armv4 support shall be preserved in GCC .... I should have be more peculiar - this is armv4t (arm920t) > > Yes that is the same toochain I use. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij 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: