Re: Removing architectures without upstream gcc support

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> writes:

> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 02/22/2018 07:45 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> Add blackfin to that list, there have been no responses from the
>> maintainers last time I posted patches to remove DSA header files, so we
>> had to go these through the networking tree. Have not see a Blackfin
>> pull request since forever, Aaron himself seems to agree this should be
>> removed:
>>
>> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1801.1/04345.html
>
> Peter Zijlstra also mentioned that one on IRC, I didn't have it on my radar
> before. Like Tile, it has only recently been marked as Orphaned in MAINTAINERS,
> so I'd be inclined to wait a little while to give possible users a
> chance to step
> up as new maintainers.
>
> My plan for v4.17 is now:
>
> - remove score, unicore and metag due to lack of toolchain
>   or interest from the maintainers.
> - keep hexagon, and try to build an llvm/clang toolchain
> - remove frv and m32r due to being abandoned for several years
> - mark tile and blackfin for pending removal later this year unless
>   a new maintainer steps up
> - mark mn10300 for pending removal unless it gets updated to
>   support chips that were made in the past 12 years and to build
>   properly.

My frustration says please please please remove blackfin with sugar on
top.   If you look at the new unified siginfo.h you will notice that
blackfin has the majority of conflicting si_code definitions.

Given that I have already dealt with the frustrating situations I can
wait a release or two.  But even though I found a cross compiler for
blackfin there is a real cost to keeping it in the tree.

Eric