Re: U-Boot support for M68K removal

Tom Rini
2023-01-30T16:34:14Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1715 bytes --]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 05:22:17PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, 2023-01-30 at 11:14 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 01:49:11PM +0100, Angelo Dureghello wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Tom and all,
> > >
> > > really have to apologize, had hard times these last 2 years
> > > and couldn't follow at all the activity, i am totally culprit
> > > and responsible.
> > >
> > > Now i can jump back on following, if there is any sense
> > > in keeping m68k/coldfire.
> > > Let me know, if ok i start back checking all old patches
> > > from tonight. Also, will have to update my email and rebase
> > > to master.
> >
> > I'm glad you're back. I think the first thing to do would be to
> > confirm
> > that U-Boot still works on at least some supported board, then
> > confirming you can still access
> > https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-coldfire
> >
>
> FWIW, m68k is still a very actively maintained architecture in the
> Linux kernel and userland with even LLVM and Rust having recently
> added support for m68k.
>
> I also own a Coldfire board myself (not sure which one without
> looking), so I can offer to test U-Boot patches in the future.

That's great to hear. While I started my life on m68k machines, I never
did get Linux up on one. Do the coldfire platforms you have run U-Boot
today? If so, are they already supported upstream? One of my biggest
concerns about the architecture, in U-Boot, is that I've just not heard
of anyone using it in quite some time, and we don't have any emulated
platforms either (can it be done in QEMU? We have other plaforms in CI
via QEMU) so I worry it's not working.

--
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]