From: Mitch Bradley <wmb@firmworks.com>
To: Sam Creasey <sammy@sammy.net>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com>,
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org,
microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] Merge common OpenFirmware device tree code
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:30:47 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ACCEC67.9070106@firmworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091007135243.GC21646@anhedonia>
>
> Sun3 doesn't have OF
When I was first developing Open Boot for the SPARCstation-1, I was also
simultaneously trying to do it for a Sun-3 system that was being built
at the same time.
It proved to be too much to do both jobs at the same time, especially in
light of all the hardware debugging that is part of a new system
bringup. So I gave up on Sun 3 and just focused on SS-1.
That particular Sun-3 machine never sold very well, while the SS-1 was
very popular. That was Sun's last 680x0 machine.
Personally, I think that continuing to support Sun-3 in Linux is not
useful in a practical sense. To the extent that supporting
long-obsolete platforms and devices makes the job harder for current
systems, it is actually harmful. Portability and generality is good in
some theoretical "rightness" sense, but there are practical limits.
Code can become so heavily layered that approaching it requires a huge
commitment of effort to learn all the artificial layers. Sometimes you
have to prune the dead branches so the living ones can get light and air.
Taking this one step further, I don't see any real good reason to
continue supporting Sun4 going forward. I got rid of my Sun4 systems
long ago because it was just too hard to keep them working - after
having used them long after most people had moved on. Dropping Sun3 and
Sun4 eliminates all vestiges of the sunmon interface and also allows
dropping support for OBP version 1, which only shipped on SS1-class
machines - the first machines in the Sun4c subclass.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-07 19:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-07 4:29 [RFC PATCH 00/12] Merge common OpenFirmware device tree code Grant Likely
2009-10-07 4:30 ` [RFC PATCH 01/12] of: Rework linux/of.h and asm/prom.h include ordering Grant Likely
2009-10-07 4:30 ` [RFC PATCH 02/12] of: merge phandle, ihandle and struct property Grant Likely
2009-10-07 4:30 ` [RFC PATCH 03/12] of: merge struct device_node Grant Likely
2009-10-07 4:30 ` [RFC PATCH 04/12] of: Move OF_IS_DYNAMIC and OF_MARK_DYNAMIC macros to of.h Grant Likely
2009-10-07 4:30 ` [RFC PATCH 05/12] of: add common header for flattened device tree representation Grant Likely
2009-10-07 4:57 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-10-07 12:14 ` [microblaze-uclinux] " Michal Simek
2009-10-07 13:38 ` Grant Likely
2009-10-07 14:07 ` Michal Simek
2009-10-07 5:14 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-10-07 13:41 ` Grant Likely
2009-10-09 6:35 ` David Gibson
2009-10-09 7:07 ` Grant Likely
2009-10-14 4:47 ` David Gibson
2009-10-07 4:31 ` [RFC PATCH 06/12] of: merge struct boot_param_header from Microblaze and PowerPC Grant Likely
2009-10-07 4:31 ` [RFC PATCH 07/12] of: merge of_node_*_flag() and set_node_proc_entry() Grant Likely
2009-10-07 4:31 ` [RFC PATCH 08/12] of: merge of_read_number() an of_read_ulong() Grant Likely
2009-10-07 4:31 ` [RFC PATCH 09/12] of: merge of_node_get(), of_node_put() and of_find_all_nodes() Grant Likely
2009-10-07 4:32 ` [RFC PATCH 10/12] of: merge of_*_flat_dt*() functions Grant Likely
2009-10-09 6:36 ` David Gibson
2009-10-09 7:03 ` Grant Likely
2009-10-07 4:32 ` [RFC PATCH 11/12] of: merge other miscellaneous prototypes Grant Likely
2009-10-07 4:32 ` [RFC PATCH 12/12] of: merge of_find_all_nodes() implementations Grant Likely
2009-10-07 4:49 ` [RFC PATCH 00/12] Merge common OpenFirmware device tree code Grant Likely
2009-10-07 5:18 ` Julian Calaby
2009-10-07 13:52 ` Sam Creasey
2009-10-07 19:30 ` Mitch Bradley [this message]
2009-10-07 20:54 ` Chris Newport
2009-10-07 21:09 ` David Miller
2009-10-08 1:29 ` Chris Newport
2009-10-08 4:39 ` David Miller
2009-10-08 13:24 ` Kjetil Oftedal
2009-10-07 22:57 ` Brad Boyer
2009-10-07 7:09 ` Rob Landley
2009-10-07 14:02 ` Grant Likely
2009-10-07 14:21 ` [microblaze-uclinux] " Michal Simek
2009-10-07 7:27 ` David Miller
2009-10-07 16:39 ` Stephen Neuendorffer
2009-10-07 9:02 ` Wolfram Sang
2009-10-15 1:00 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-10-15 1:01 ` [PATCH 1/2] of: create asm/of.h Stephen Rothwell
2009-10-15 1:02 ` [PATCH 2/2] of: move struct property to asm/of.h Stephen Rothwell
2009-10-15 17:06 ` [RFC PATCH 00/12] Merge common OpenFirmware device tree code Grant Likely
2009-10-15 23:38 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-10-16 3:18 ` Grant Likely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4ACCEC67.9070106@firmworks.com \
--to=wmb@firmworks.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=julian.calaby@gmail.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au \
--cc=sammy@sammy.net \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).