Re: [PATCH] Deprecate lm32 port

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <f4bug@amsat.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1856 bytes --]

Le jeu. 27 août 2020 16:51, Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> a écrit :

> On 27/08/2020 16.19, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 14:52, Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> What's next? moxie? ... apart from the tree-wide clean-ups and trivial
> >> fixes, moxie did not have any major updates since 2013 when it has been
> >> added, as far as I can see ... is anybody still using it?
> >
> > I was never very clear on how much use moxie had to start with...
> >
> > An extremely rough-and-ready guide to how well-loved a target
> > is might be "did it get converted to TranslatorOps?". Unconverted:
> >  * avr
> >  * cris
> >  * lm32 (deprecation in progress)
> >  * microblaze (rth just posted patches for this)
> >  * moxie
> >  * nios2
> >  * tilegx (deprecation in progress)
> >  * unicore32 (deprecation in progress)
>
> Another criteria might be: Do we have a tcg, qtest or acceptance test to
> check that the target is still working?
>

And to some extent "is there documentation publicly available?" as it makes
maintenance by others possible.


> - avr has an acceptance test
>
> - cris has tcg tests
>
> - lm32 has tcg tests
>
> - microblaze has acceptance tests (and one trivial qtest)
>
> - moxie ... has only one very trivial qtest (boot-serial-test)
>
> - nios2 has an acceptance test
>
> - tilegx does not have any tests at all
>
> - unicore32 does not have any tests at all
>   (not counting the trivial machine-none-test)
>
> So from that point of view, unicore32, tilegx and moxie are the
> candidates for deprecation.
>
> > I think dropping the moxie maintainer an email to ask about
> > the architecture's status wouldn't be a bad idea if you
> > wanted to start that ball rolling.
>
> Ok, good idea, I'll try to write a mail later today.
>
>  Thomas
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2669 bytes --]