From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Mundt Subject: Re: [PATCH for 2.6.28 stable] m68knommu: fix m68knommu defconfig can't build Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:12:08 +0900 Message-ID: <20090112111208.GH28564@linux-sh.org> References: <20081230193943.1281.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <48E9AE16.2000002@snapgear.com> <20090112104447.GG28564@linux-sh.org> <20090112105942.GA10936@uranus.ravnborg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090112105942.GA10936@uranus.ravnborg.org> Sender: linux-m68k-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org To: Sam Ravnborg Cc: Greg Ungerer , KOSAKI Motohiro , "David S. Miller" , Geert Uytterhoeven , Roman Zippel , Greg Ungerer , linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, stable@kernel.org, LKML On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:59:42AM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:44:47PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 04:20:06PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > > > Hi Kosako, > > > > > > KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > >I guess nobody don't test m68knommu at all last three month. > > > >Do we still need to maintain this architecture? > > > > > > Yes, we do. > > > > > Any effort to get m68knommu folded in to m68k proper? This might help > > with some of your bitrot issues.. And likely less work to do in > > supporting those m68knommu parts that ship with MMUs ;-) > > > > m68knommu is the only one of the mmu/nommu variants left that ships in > > its own architecture directory rather than being folded in to its parent. > > It would be good to get rid of it one of these days. > > From the outside it looks like there are indeed a whish to do so > but both m68k and m68knommu maintainers seems to be busy with other stuff. > > Not that I can think of what is more important than to merge the two > architectures ;-) > > If I get some spare time one day I have actually planned to try to > help a little - but that would require an active maintainer.. > > We just did the exercise with sparc/sparc64 unification and > if you forget the few times I broke sparc32 then it went well > with only limited problems. > > One key factor why it went well was that patches were reviewed > and applied within a few days whch is why I stresses that the > maintainer needs spare time to support the effort. > I have some experience with developing a nommu port within an mmu-only one. If you start some of the legwork on this I can try to chip in some spare cycles, though ultimately some m68k person will still have to regain consciousness at some point :-)