Re: [PATCH] riscv: Remove support for XIP kernel

From: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
To: Kunwu Chan <kunwu.chan@linux.dev>
Cc: Nam Cao <namcao@linutronix.de>, Paul Walmsley <pjw@kernel.org>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Alexandre Ghiti <alex@ghiti.fr>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@gmail.com>, Frederik Haxel <haxel@fzi.de>,
	Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@konsulko.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: Remove support for XIP kernel
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2026 10:43:48 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260213-canteen-diffuser-5ecc80f264b4@spud> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e5bb59c7-efd9-4706-978d-cb8f1249a535@linux.dev>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1493 bytes --]

On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 05:37:45PM +0800, Kunwu Chan wrote:
> On 2/2/26 19:54, Nam Cao wrote:
> > XIP has a history of being broken for long periods of time. In 2023, it was
> > broken for 18 months before getting fixed [1]. In 2024 it was 4 months [2].
> >
> > And now it is broken again since commit a44fb5722199 ("riscv: Add runtime
> > constant support"), 10 months ago.
> >
> > These are clear signs that XIP feature is not being used.
> >
> > I occasionally looked after XIP, but mostly because I was bored and had
> > nothing better to do.
> >
> > Remove XIP support. Revert is possible if someone shows up complaining.
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20231212-customary-hardcover-e19462bf8e75@wendy/ [1]
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20240526110104.470429-1-namcao@linutronix.de/ [2]
> > Signed-off-by: Nam Cao <namcao@linutronix.de>
> Hi,
> 
> Please don't remove CONFIG_XIP_KERNEL.
> 
> Zhouyi Zhou zhouzhouyi@gmail.com <mailto:zhouzhouyi@gmail.com>and I are
> willing to take over
> maintainership and keep it build-tested and maintained going forward.
> 
> We will send a MAINTAINERS patch shortly.

I dunno what a MAINTAINERS patch for something like this would even look
like, since XIP stuff is scattered all over the place. More meaningful
would be fixing the purported break due to runtime constants? Sounds
like it would something that could demonstrate your ability to do what
you claim.

Cheers,
Conor.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 161 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv