Re: [PATCH] nios2: remove the architecture

[Simon Schuster <schuster.simon@siemens-energy.com>]

Hi Arnd, Dinh, Wolfram, and Miguel,

thank you for your explanations and encouragement; I've now sent my
application for co-maintainership for arch/nios2 to you, Dinh.

On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 09:06:33AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I think that is a reasonable target. We have a bunch of embedded
> architectures that have a similarly small user base and I expect
> that we will want to remove most of them at some point, as we did
> for seven architectures in linux-4.17.
> 
> As long as there is a maintainer for nios2 and it's not actively
> getting in the way of a specific treewide change, I don't see any
> reason to remove this any earlier than the other ones.
> 
> Obviously at some point nios2 will have to get removed because
> of the limit to gcc-14 or older, but that should not be a problem
> for the next few LTS releases.

This all sounds quite reasonable, including the toolchain
considerations. Thank you for the offer to keep it around a bit.
If any issues arise with tree-wide changes I'd be happy to look into
what can be done on the arch/nios2 side; now that the issues should
reliably reach me via mail.

> > Sure, I'd be glad to do so, but so far I refrained from it as I was a bit
> > unsure about the netiquette (can I simply do so by self-proclamation? At
> > least the git history seems to suggest so...).
> 
> Dinh already replied that he welcomes the help, and I also suggested
> the same thing a year ago. As the only known user that has contributed
> patches in a long time, you are obviously qualified.
> 
> Sending a patch for the MAINTAINERS file to Dinh is the first step,
> once he has sent that upstream, you can (optionally) apply for
> kernel.org account that would let you host a git tree on kernel.org
> or have a tree that you both have access to.

I've sent the patch, I'm sure we can work everything else out from
there.

Best regards,
Simon