On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Jonas Bonn wrote:
On 09/19/2016 04:04 PM, Stafford Horne wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 09/19/2016 02:11 AM, Stafford Horne wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 09/18/2016 11:02 PM, Stafford Horne wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sun, 18 Sep 2016, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > > > > Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net>
> > > > > > If you plan to handle openrisc going forward, it would be
> > great > > > > if you > could
> > > > > consider updating MAINTAINERS. The web site and git
> > repository have > > > been > unreachable
> > > > > for a long time.
> > > > > > Thank you,
> > > > Updating maintainers was kind of on my plans, but I figured I
> > need to
> > > > prove that I kind of know what I am doing.
> > > > > > The alternative would be to mark it as Orphaned. Which, for
> > all > practical purpose,
> > > would be the correct state right now.
> > +CC The openrisc list
> > Understood, I don't think we would want that to happen.
> Look at the entry today:
> OPENRISC ARCHITECTURE
> M: Jonas Bonn <jo...@southpole.se>
> W: http://openrisc.net
> S: Maintained
> T: git git://openrisc.net/~jonas/linux
> F: arch/openrisc/
> At the very least, W: and T: are incorrect and need to be updated or
> Plus, apparently there is a L:, and "T:
> might be appropriate.
I am aware of this, we have since setup a new website, mailing list and as
you have found, git repo. Stefan has been nominated as the maintainer by
Jonas on a previous mail thread.
The issue (as we see it) is that neither Stefan or I have signed PGP keys
by anyone in the web of trust.
I sent this patch set with a cover lett trying to explain of the situation
trying to get some help. Your reponses are very helpful.
Do you think I should just send "git pull" reuqests to Linus with a self
signed pgp key and eplaination to see how it goes?
The bigger question I would have at this point is the value of the code
remaining upstream... Five years ago, there was a promise to try to get the
toolchain upstream within a year or two; to this day, I don't know that much
progress has been made there so this architecture still requires a
hodge-podge of tools from various sources to build.
Given the toolchain maintainer's general reluctance to move things upstream,
I'd almost be inclined to just remove the OpenRISC arch from the kernel
altogether. Are there any other arch's that can't be built with an upstream
GCC at this point?
We have tried to get the toolchain in order in the last year. The latest
efforts is headlined by a toolchain build tutorial here:
The main toolchain project
binutils-gdb - is upstreamed, I have been working on getting more of the
but there are many patches sitting in our repo on github
I have been working on getting them rebased to 7.11 and
newlib - is upstreamed, with my gdb fixes I have also worked on
fixing some bugs in the last year.
gcc - this is the problem, the gcc code has not been signed over
to the fsf by the original authors. A clean-room rewrite
seems to needed last I checked
The projects are all being maintained on the openrisc github page and we
are trying to keep it going.
The attraction of openrisc, I would say, is that its one of the only fully
open platforms in the kernel. Its also relatively simple so for hobbyist
and students who want to have a 32-bit cpu which they can do 'full-stack'
development on it fits a good nitch.
Keeping it upstream means also this code base is not getting stale. But we
do need people to look after it and the patches.
I have a change as following in my backlog, as follows:
@@ -8691,10 +8063,12 @@ F: drivers/of/overlay.c
-M: Jonas Bonn <jo...@southpole.se>
+M: Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristians...@saunalahti.fi>
+M: Stafford Horne <sho...@gmail.com>
-T: git git://openrisc.net/~jonas/linux