On 03/09/2018 04:13 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
Bastian Koppelmann <kbast...@mail.uni-paderborn.de> writes:
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.
I'm not saying, we shouldn't drop them. To me it felt like we brought
just another target to the chop block while we were at it.
Maybe a good approach is to deprecate the target first, then ask if
somebody else is willing to maintain it, and if this fails, drop it.