From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756216AbcBIECh (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Feb 2016 23:02:37 -0500 Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:40144 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751348AbcBIECg (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Feb 2016 23:02:36 -0500 Subject: Re: avr32 build failures in linux-next To: Andy Shevchenko , =?UTF-8?B?TcOlbnMgUnVsbGfDpXJk?= References: <56B4C799.5070401@roeck-us.net> <56B4CE8C.8040307@gmail.com> <20160206115722.GA32647@samfundet.no> <56B61D21.2010407@roeck-us.net> Cc: Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt , Sudip Mukherjee , Haavard Skinnemoen , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" From: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: <56B964D9.8000300@roeck-us.net> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 20:02:33 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Authenticated_sender: linux@roeck-us.net X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - bh-25.webhostbox.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - roeck-us.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: bh-25.webhostbox.net: authenticated_id: linux@roeck-us.net X-Authenticated-Sender: bh-25.webhostbox.net: linux@roeck-us.net X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/08/2016 08:06 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Måns Rullgård wrote: > >> Not very surprising either. The number of people using Linux on avr32 >> is probably approximately zero, and if anyone is, they're likely still >> running 2.6.32 or thereabouts. > > Once I tried up the topic about removal avr32 for good, but looks like > it wasn't a good time. Maybe now is better? It would really reduce a > burden on many drivers. > I would agree, as long as the maintainers agree. We don't want to repeat the h8300 experience. Thanks, Guenter