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
