From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751568AbeBZWMu (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:12:50 -0500 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:42676 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750991AbeBZWMq (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:12:46 -0500 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Florian Fainelli , linux-arch , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Richard Kuo , "open list\:QUALCOMM HEXAGON..." , Chen Liqin , Lennox Wu , Guan Xuetao , Guenter Roeck , Al Viro , James Hogan , "open list\:METAG ARCHITECTURE" , Jonas Bonn , Stefan Kristiansson , Stafford Horne , openrisc@lists.librecores.org, David Howells , Peter Zijlstra References: <2d12dc77-16b9-417d-72e3-2b1ffa38803d@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:11:54 -0600 In-Reply-To: (Arnd Bergmann's message of "Mon, 26 Feb 2018 09:26:57 +0100") Message-ID: <877eqz1jv9.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1eqR0V-0005HF-00;;;mid=<877eqz1jv9.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=174.19.85.160;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX18ldKvu5W0bi/2HjmDirfnMhIhzyB1Sojc= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 174.19.85.160 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Arnd Bergmann X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 15028 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.04 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 2.8 (0.0%), b_tie_ro: 1.89 (0.0%), parse: 0.96 (0.0%), extract_message_metadata: 15 (0.1%), get_uri_detail_list: 2.0 (0.0%), tests_pri_-1000: 3.9 (0.0%), tests_pri_-950: 1.14 (0.0%), tests_pri_-900: 1.02 (0.0%), tests_pri_-400: 25 (0.2%), check_bayes: 24 (0.2%), b_tokenize: 8 (0.1%), b_tok_get_all: 8 (0.1%), b_comp_prob: 2.5 (0.0%), b_tok_touch_all: 3.2 (0.0%), b_finish: 0.68 (0.0%), tests_pri_0: 205 (1.4%), check_dkim_signature: 0.45 (0.0%), check_dkim_adsp: 4.1 (0.0%), tests_pri_500: 14771 (98.3%), poll_dns_idle: 14761 (98.2%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: Removing architectures without upstream gcc support X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Arnd Bergmann writes: > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Florian Fainelli 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