Re: [Qemu-devel] Deprecate tilegx ?

["Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>]

Bastian Koppelmann <kbastian@mail.uni-paderborn.de> writes:

> On 02/28/2018 07:11 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 27.02.2018 12:51, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> I propose that we deprecate and plan to remove the unicore32 code:
>> [...]
> [...]
>>
>> Sounds reasonable to me, but let's wait a week or two for feedback from
>> Guan Xuetao.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>>> Possibly there are other target architectures we could reasonably
>>> deprecate-and-remove (though none of the other ones Linux is dropping
>>> in this round are ones we support)...
>>
>> I'd vote for marking tilegx as deprecated, too, since we even do not
>> have an active maintainer for that CPU core (at least I did not spot one
>> in our MAINTAINERS file). Opinions?
>
> I always saw it as a big plus that QEMU supports nearly any
> architecture, no matter how obscure it is. So I'm a bit more hesitant on
> dropping architectures quickly.

All things being equal I agree, however there is a maintenance burden
for the QEMU upstream, especially if the only active use if on
out-of-tree branches or behind the closed doors of research groups.

Looking at https://wiki.qemu.org/Documentation/Platforms/TileGX it
doesn't give much of an idea of where I would get toolchains to build
guest binaries or what guest user-space I could run.

--
Alex Bennée