Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-09-05 Thread Guenter Roeck 
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 08:41:43AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 08/30/2013 09:00:35 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >The web site associated with the score architecture in MAINTAINERS
> >is non-functional and available for sale. The last Ack from one
> >of the maintainers was in December 2012. The main maintainer's last
> >commit was in 2011. The last maintainer pull request was early 2011.
> >
> >Cc: Lennox Wu 
> >Cc: Chen Liqin 
> >Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck 
> >---
> >More housekeeping.
> >
> >Maybe this removal request is a bit early, but architecture
> >support seems
> >to have vanished entirely. At the very least this puts interested
> >parties
> >(if there are any) on notice.
> 
> I note that if qemu system emulation supports an obscurish platform,
> the rest of us can regression test it. If qemu doesn't support it,
> we can't.
> 
> (I'm looking at you, Hexagon.)
> 
At least they have a working compiler. It also helps if qemu runs with an
unpatched upstream kernel, which is unfortunately not always the case.

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-09-05 Thread Rob Landley 

On 08/30/2013 09:00:35 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:

The web site associated with the score architecture in MAINTAINERS
is non-functional and available for sale. The last Ack from one
of the maintainers was in December 2012. The main maintainer's last
commit was in 2011. The last maintainer pull request was early 2011.

Cc: Lennox Wu 
Cc: Chen Liqin 
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck 
---
More housekeeping.

Maybe this removal request is a bit early, but architecture support  
seems
to have vanished entirely. At the very least this puts interested  
parties

(if there are any) on notice.


I note that if qemu system emulation supports an obscurish platform,  
the rest of us can regression test it. If qemu doesn't support it, we  
can't.


(I'm looking at you, Hexagon.)

Rob--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-09-05 Thread Rob Landley 

On 08/30/2013 09:00:35 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:

The web site associated with the score architecture in MAINTAINERS
is non-functional and available for sale. The last Ack from one
of the maintainers was in December 2012. The main maintainer's last
commit was in 2011. The last maintainer pull request was early 2011.

Cc: Lennox Wu lennox...@gmail.com
Cc: Chen Liqin liqin.c...@sunplusct.com
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net
---
More housekeeping.

Maybe this removal request is a bit early, but architecture support  
seems
to have vanished entirely. At the very least this puts interested  
parties

(if there are any) on notice.


I note that if qemu system emulation supports an obscurish platform,  
the rest of us can regression test it. If qemu doesn't support it, we  
can't.


(I'm looking at you, Hexagon.)

Rob--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-09-05 Thread Guenter Roeck 
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 08:41:43AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
 On 08/30/2013 09:00:35 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
 The web site associated with the score architecture in MAINTAINERS
 is non-functional and available for sale. The last Ack from one
 of the maintainers was in December 2012. The main maintainer's last
 commit was in 2011. The last maintainer pull request was early 2011.
 
 Cc: Lennox Wu lennox...@gmail.com
 Cc: Chen Liqin liqin.c...@sunplusct.com
 Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net
 ---
 More housekeeping.
 
 Maybe this removal request is a bit early, but architecture
 support seems
 to have vanished entirely. At the very least this puts interested
 parties
 (if there are any) on notice.
 
 I note that if qemu system emulation supports an obscurish platform,
 the rest of us can regression test it. If qemu doesn't support it,
 we can't.
 
 (I'm looking at you, Hexagon.)
 
At least they have a working compiler. It also helps if qemu runs with an
unpatched upstream kernel, which is unfortunately not always the case.

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-09-03 Thread Guenter Roeck 

On 09/02/2013 09:54 PM, Liqin Chen wrote:


2013/9/3 Guenter Roeck mailto:li...@roeck-us.net>>

On 09/02/2013 08:18 AM, Lennox Wu wrote:

Before we start the development of the S+core, Sunplus had licensed
ARM and MIPS. We develop S+core for other reason such as the price.
Some products on the web of Sunplus adopt S+core , for example
the SPV7050.(http://w3.sunplus.__com/products/spv7050.asp 
) These products
could still be bought from the market. Some high-end products adopt
ARM or MIPS. So, there is no conflict for a company adopts multiple
architectures.

As I said, we recognize that we rarely update because of the limited
applications and rare requests from customers. Maybe we don’t
understand the culture enough; we think that it is unnecessary if we
have no new bugs or new functions, the thought seems wrong. We can
commit some patches in the near future.


The point is not about submitting patches, it is about maintaining the code.
Even if you don't add functionality, one would expect that you ensure that
new kernel versions compile and run on your hardware.

Since January 2012, 68 patches have been applied to arch/score, pretty
much all of them addressing kernel API changes or global cleanup.
Only two of them got an Ack by one of the score maintainers.
This strongly suggests that you don't keep track of what is going on,
and at the very least raises the question if you do compile and test
new kernel versions on a regular basis. Even if you do, no one knows
about it, because 

As part of this process, I would expect the architecture maintainer to
accept incoming patches, test the same, and send pull requests to Linus.
The last time this happened was early 2011; since then all score patches
were sent to Linus through Andrew and a few other maintainers.
Actually, I don't see many signoffs from a score maintainer at all,
even from the very beginning.

As pointed out, the MAINTAINERS entry for score points to a
non-existing domain, as does the e-mail address of one of the
maintainers.

I would not call that "maintained".



Hi Al Viro, Guenter Roeck, Arnd Bergmann and all,

I still supports the S+core team to maintain their codes, although I
left sunplus co. in 2011.

I keep reading the mailing list and testing these patches for S+core,
I think the main problems are they have not echoed to any comments on
score's questions. Maybe they think the current situation is good
enough for their customers, and they don’t understand the rules of the
group enough. Even so, they should update score code to the latest
status, include my mail address.

We will discuss how to maintain the code of S+core. However, if all of
you and Linus also think the S+core should be removed from the
upstream, we will do it.



Trying to build gcc for score says:

*** Configuration score-unknown-elf is obsolete.
*** Specify --enable-obsolete to build it anyway.
*** Support will be REMOVED in the next major release of GCC,
*** unless a maintainer comes forward.

That does not sound very encouraging.

Guenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-09-03 Thread Guenter Roeck 
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 12:54:06PM +0800, Liqin Chen wrote:
> 2013/9/3 Guenter Roeck 
> 
> > On 09/02/2013 08:18 AM, Lennox Wu wrote:
> >
> >> Before we start the development of the S+core, Sunplus had licensed
> >> ARM and MIPS. We develop S+core for other reason such as the price.
> >> Some products on the web of Sunplus adopt S+core , for example
> >> the 
> >> SPV7050.(http://w3.sunplus.**com/products/spv7050.asp)
> >> These products
> >> could still be bought from the market. Some high-end products adopt
> >> ARM or MIPS. So, there is no conflict for a company adopts multiple
> >> architectures.
> >>
> >> As I said, we recognize that we rarely update because of the limited
> >> applications and rare requests from customers. Maybe we don’t
> >> understand the culture enough; we think that it is unnecessary if we
> >> have no new bugs or new functions, the thought seems wrong. We can
> >> commit some patches in the near future.
> >>
> >>
> > The point is not about submitting patches, it is about maintaining the
> > code.
> > Even if you don't add functionality, one would expect that you ensure that
> > new kernel versions compile and run on your hardware.
> >
> > Since January 2012, 68 patches have been applied to arch/score, pretty
> > much all of them addressing kernel API changes or global cleanup.
> > Only two of them got an Ack by one of the score maintainers.
> > This strongly suggests that you don't keep track of what is going on,
> > and at the very least raises the question if you do compile and test
> > new kernel versions on a regular basis. Even if you do, no one knows
> > about it, because 
> >
> > As part of this process, I would expect the architecture maintainer to
> > accept incoming patches, test the same, and send pull requests to Linus.
> > The last time this happened was early 2011; since then all score patches
> > were sent to Linus through Andrew and a few other maintainers.
> > Actually, I don't see many signoffs from a score maintainer at all,
> > even from the very beginning.
> >
> > As pointed out, the MAINTAINERS entry for score points to a
> > non-existing domain, as does the e-mail address of one of the
> > maintainers.
> >
> > I would not call that "maintained".
> >
> 
> 
> Hi Al Viro, Guenter Roeck, Arnd Bergmann and all,
> 
> I still supports the S+core team to maintain their codes, although I
> left sunplus co. in 2011.
> 
> I keep reading the mailing list and testing these patches for S+core,
> I think the main problems are they have not echoed to any comments on
> score's questions. Maybe they think the current situation is good
> enough for their customers, and they don’t understand the rules of the
> group enough. Even so, they should update score code to the latest
> status, include my mail address.
> 
Updating your e-mail address, sending Ack or Nack replies to patches
for the architecture, and possibly sending pull requests to Linus
would be entirely up to you.

With neither you nor Suncore showing any activity, how is the kernel
community supposed to know if anyone maintains the architecture ?
Your e-mail pointing to a domain which no longer exists doesn't really
show much engagement.

Similar, if you _don't_ maintain the architecture anymore, it would be
prudent to let the community know by submitting a patch removing yourself
as maintainer.

> We will discuss how to maintain the code of S+core. However, if all of
> you and Linus also think the S+core should be removed from the
> upstream, we will do it.
> 
The main concern is that the architecture appears to be un-maintained in
practice. We don't know if the code even compiles, much less if it works
on any target hardware. We'll see if that situation changes.

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-09-03 Thread Guenter Roeck 
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 12:54:06PM +0800, Liqin Chen wrote:
 2013/9/3 Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net
 
  On 09/02/2013 08:18 AM, Lennox Wu wrote:
 
  Before we start the development of the S+core, Sunplus had licensed
  ARM and MIPS. We develop S+core for other reason such as the price.
  Some products on the web of Sunplus adopt S+core , for example
  the 
  SPV7050.(http://w3.sunplus.**com/products/spv7050.asphttp://w3.sunplus.com/products/spv7050.asp)
  These products
  could still be bought from the market. Some high-end products adopt
  ARM or MIPS. So, there is no conflict for a company adopts multiple
  architectures.
 
  As I said, we recognize that we rarely update because of the limited
  applications and rare requests from customers. Maybe we don’t
  understand the culture enough; we think that it is unnecessary if we
  have no new bugs or new functions, the thought seems wrong. We can
  commit some patches in the near future.
 
 
  The point is not about submitting patches, it is about maintaining the
  code.
  Even if you don't add functionality, one would expect that you ensure that
  new kernel versions compile and run on your hardware.
 
  Since January 2012, 68 patches have been applied to arch/score, pretty
  much all of them addressing kernel API changes or global cleanup.
  Only two of them got an Ack by one of the score maintainers.
  This strongly suggests that you don't keep track of what is going on,
  and at the very least raises the question if you do compile and test
  new kernel versions on a regular basis. Even if you do, no one knows
  about it, because 
 
  As part of this process, I would expect the architecture maintainer to
  accept incoming patches, test the same, and send pull requests to Linus.
  The last time this happened was early 2011; since then all score patches
  were sent to Linus through Andrew and a few other maintainers.
  Actually, I don't see many signoffs from a score maintainer at all,
  even from the very beginning.
 
  As pointed out, the MAINTAINERS entry for score points to a
  non-existing domain, as does the e-mail address of one of the
  maintainers.
 
  I would not call that maintained.
 
 
 
 Hi Al Viro, Guenter Roeck, Arnd Bergmann and all,
 
 I still supports the S+core team to maintain their codes, although I
 left sunplus co. in 2011.
 
 I keep reading the mailing list and testing these patches for S+core,
 I think the main problems are they have not echoed to any comments on
 score's questions. Maybe they think the current situation is good
 enough for their customers, and they don’t understand the rules of the
 group enough. Even so, they should update score code to the latest
 status, include my mail address.
 
Updating your e-mail address, sending Ack or Nack replies to patches
for the architecture, and possibly sending pull requests to Linus
would be entirely up to you.

With neither you nor Suncore showing any activity, how is the kernel
community supposed to know if anyone maintains the architecture ?
Your e-mail pointing to a domain which no longer exists doesn't really
show much engagement.

Similar, if you _don't_ maintain the architecture anymore, it would be
prudent to let the community know by submitting a patch removing yourself
as maintainer.

 We will discuss how to maintain the code of S+core. However, if all of
 you and Linus also think the S+core should be removed from the
 upstream, we will do it.
 
The main concern is that the architecture appears to be un-maintained in
practice. We don't know if the code even compiles, much less if it works
on any target hardware. We'll see if that situation changes.

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-09-03 Thread Guenter Roeck 

On 09/02/2013 09:54 PM, Liqin Chen wrote:


2013/9/3 Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net mailto:li...@roeck-us.net

On 09/02/2013 08:18 AM, Lennox Wu wrote:

Before we start the development of the S+core, Sunplus had licensed
ARM and MIPS. We develop S+core for other reason such as the price.
Some products on the web of Sunplus adopt S+core , for example
the SPV7050.(http://w3.sunplus.__com/products/spv7050.asp 
http://w3.sunplus.com/products/spv7050.asp) These products
could still be bought from the market. Some high-end products adopt
ARM or MIPS. So, there is no conflict for a company adopts multiple
architectures.

As I said, we recognize that we rarely update because of the limited
applications and rare requests from customers. Maybe we don’t
understand the culture enough; we think that it is unnecessary if we
have no new bugs or new functions, the thought seems wrong. We can
commit some patches in the near future.


The point is not about submitting patches, it is about maintaining the code.
Even if you don't add functionality, one would expect that you ensure that
new kernel versions compile and run on your hardware.

Since January 2012, 68 patches have been applied to arch/score, pretty
much all of them addressing kernel API changes or global cleanup.
Only two of them got an Ack by one of the score maintainers.
This strongly suggests that you don't keep track of what is going on,
and at the very least raises the question if you do compile and test
new kernel versions on a regular basis. Even if you do, no one knows
about it, because 

As part of this process, I would expect the architecture maintainer to
accept incoming patches, test the same, and send pull requests to Linus.
The last time this happened was early 2011; since then all score patches
were sent to Linus through Andrew and a few other maintainers.
Actually, I don't see many signoffs from a score maintainer at all,
even from the very beginning.

As pointed out, the MAINTAINERS entry for score points to a
non-existing domain, as does the e-mail address of one of the
maintainers.

I would not call that maintained.



Hi Al Viro, Guenter Roeck, Arnd Bergmann and all,

I still supports the S+core team to maintain their codes, although I
left sunplus co. in 2011.

I keep reading the mailing list and testing these patches for S+core,
I think the main problems are they have not echoed to any comments on
score's questions. Maybe they think the current situation is good
enough for their customers, and they don’t understand the rules of the
group enough. Even so, they should update score code to the latest
status, include my mail address.

We will discuss how to maintain the code of S+core. However, if all of
you and Linus also think the S+core should be removed from the
upstream, we will do it.



Trying to build gcc for score says:

*** Configuration score-unknown-elf is obsolete.
*** Specify --enable-obsolete to build it anyway.
*** Support will be REMOVED in the next major release of GCC,
*** unless a maintainer comes forward.

That does not sound very encouraging.

Guenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-09-02 Thread Guenter Roeck 

On 09/02/2013 08:18 AM, Lennox Wu wrote:

Before we start the development of the S+core, Sunplus had licensed
ARM and MIPS. We develop S+core for other reason such as the price.
Some products on the web of Sunplus adopt S+core , for example
the SPV7050.(http://w3.sunplus.com/products/spv7050.asp) These products
could still be bought from the market. Some high-end products adopt
ARM or MIPS. So, there is no conflict for a company adopts multiple
architectures.

As I said, we recognize that we rarely update because of the limited
applications and rare requests from customers. Maybe we don’t
understand the culture enough; we think that it is unnecessary if we
have no new bugs or new functions, the thought seems wrong. We can
commit some patches in the near future.



The point is not about submitting patches, it is about maintaining the code.
Even if you don't add functionality, one would expect that you ensure that
new kernel versions compile and run on your hardware.

Since January 2012, 68 patches have been applied to arch/score, pretty
much all of them addressing kernel API changes or global cleanup.
Only two of them got an Ack by one of the score maintainers.
This strongly suggests that you don't keep track of what is going on,
and at the very least raises the question if you do compile and test
new kernel versions on a regular basis. Even if you do, no one knows
about it, because 

As part of this process, I would expect the architecture maintainer to
accept incoming patches, test the same, and send pull requests to Linus.
The last time this happened was early 2011; since then all score patches
were sent to Linus through Andrew and a few other maintainers.
Actually, I don't see many signoffs from a score maintainer at all,
even from the very beginning.

As pointed out, the MAINTAINERS entry for score points to a
non-existing domain, as does the e-mail address of one of the
maintainers.

I would not call that "maintained".

Guenter


Best,
Lennox

2013/9/2 Guenter Roeck :

On 09/01/2013 09:13 PM, Lennox Wu wrote:


Dear all,

Indeed, Sunplus S+core is not a popular architecture and there is no
standalone to be sold so you should not find related news on the
Internet.  However, the s+core is adopted by our SoCs and these SoCs
are indeed adopted by some companies, we hope the architecture can be
reserved to provide the more and more powerful Linux for our
customers. It is true that we rarely update the code because that we
are rarely requested to add new functions and to correct bugs by our
customers, and it is also because we have no new product to release.
In the near future, we will release some patches for the existed
S+core architecture.



Key question is not if the platform is popular, but if it is maintained.
The commit log over the last two years strongly suggests that this is
not the case. I suspect that the code is far from compilable at this point,
much less executable. Unfortunately this is hard to verify, as a pre-built
or even buildable toolchain is not easily available.

 From a company perspective, you might want to decide if you want to put
resources into this architecture to keep it alive, or focus on more recent
chips and architectures. Information available on the internet suggests
that Suncore's more recent chips are based on ARM. Given that, it appears
somewhat unlikely that resources for maintaining S+core will be made
available. Guess we'll see if the situation changes.

Guenter



2013/8/31 Guenter Roeck :


The web site associated with the score architecture in MAINTAINERS
is non-functional and available for sale. The last Ack from one
of the maintainers was in December 2012. The main maintainer's last
commit was in 2011. The last maintainer pull request was early 2011.

Cc: Lennox Wu 
Cc: Chen Liqin 
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck 
---
More housekeeping.

Maybe this removal request is a bit early, but architecture support seems
to have vanished entirely. At the very least this puts interested parties
(if there are any) on notice.








--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-09-02 Thread Al Viro 
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 11:18:17PM +0800, Lennox Wu wrote:
> Before we start the development of the S+core, Sunplus had licensed
> ARM and MIPS. We develop S+core for other reason such as the price.
> Some products on the web of Sunplus adopt S+core , for example
> the SPV7050.(http://w3.sunplus.com/products/spv7050.asp) These products
> could still be bought from the market. Some high-end products adopt
> ARM or MIPS. So, there is no conflict for a company adopts multiple
> architectures.
> 
> As I said, we recognize that we rarely update because of the limited
> applications and rare requests from customers. Maybe we don?t
> understand the culture enough; we think that it is unnecessary if we
> have no new bugs or new functions, the thought seems wrong. We can
> commit some patches in the near future.

"New bugs" as in "don't bother with the stuff that had been broken since
the initial merge"?  You might want to take a look at arch/score/kernel/entry.S,
for starters.  And compare these pieces of code:
brl r10 # Do The Real system call

cmpi.c  r4, 0
blt 1f  
ldi r8, 0
sw  r8, [r0, PT_R7]
b 2f
1:
cmpi.c  r4, -MAX_ERRNO - 1
ble 2f
ldi r8, 0x1;
sw  r8, [r0, PT_R7]
neg r4, r4
2:
sw  r4, [r0, PT_R4] # save result
- syscall without being traced vs.
brl r8

li  r8, -MAX_ERRNO - 1
sw  r8, [r0, PT_R7] # set error flag

neg r4, r4  # error
sw  r4, [r0, PT_R0] # set flag for syscall
# restarting
1:  sw  r4, [r0, PT_R2] # result
- syscall under ptrace.  Estimate the amount of testing (or reading, for
that matter) the second chunk had...

Both pieces are obviously derived from mips, except that
* mips ABI has return values go in r2, score one - in r4.  Note where
the ptraced variant stores the result...
* syscall restart logics on mips uses regs->regs[0] as "syscall restart
allowed" flag; score does no such thing - regs->is_syscall is used and no,
PT_R0 isn't equal to its offset
* both mips and non-traced path on score implement this:
r7 = (unsigned long)res >= -MAX_ERRNO;
if (r7)
res = -res;
ptraced path on score, OTOH, doesn't do comparison at all, slaps -MAX_ERRNO-1
into r7, always negates the return value and, while we are at it, still
contains the target of lost conditional branch instruction.

And yes, it had been that way since the initial merge into the mainline tree -
this didn't come from subsequent bitrot.  Does that disqualify it from
being a "new bug"?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-09-02 Thread Lennox Wu 
Before we start the development of the S+core, Sunplus had licensed
ARM and MIPS. We develop S+core for other reason such as the price.
Some products on the web of Sunplus adopt S+core , for example
the SPV7050.(http://w3.sunplus.com/products/spv7050.asp) These products
could still be bought from the market. Some high-end products adopt
ARM or MIPS. So, there is no conflict for a company adopts multiple
architectures.

As I said, we recognize that we rarely update because of the limited
applications and rare requests from customers. Maybe we don’t
understand the culture enough; we think that it is unnecessary if we
have no new bugs or new functions, the thought seems wrong. We can
commit some patches in the near future.

Best,
Lennox

2013/9/2 Guenter Roeck :
> On 09/01/2013 09:13 PM, Lennox Wu wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Indeed, Sunplus S+core is not a popular architecture and there is no
>> standalone to be sold so you should not find related news on the
>> Internet.  However, the s+core is adopted by our SoCs and these SoCs
>> are indeed adopted by some companies, we hope the architecture can be
>> reserved to provide the more and more powerful Linux for our
>> customers. It is true that we rarely update the code because that we
>> are rarely requested to add new functions and to correct bugs by our
>> customers, and it is also because we have no new product to release.
>> In the near future, we will release some patches for the existed
>> S+core architecture.
>>
>
> Key question is not if the platform is popular, but if it is maintained.
> The commit log over the last two years strongly suggests that this is
> not the case. I suspect that the code is far from compilable at this point,
> much less executable. Unfortunately this is hard to verify, as a pre-built
> or even buildable toolchain is not easily available.
>
> From a company perspective, you might want to decide if you want to put
> resources into this architecture to keep it alive, or focus on more recent
> chips and architectures. Information available on the internet suggests
> that Suncore's more recent chips are based on ARM. Given that, it appears
> somewhat unlikely that resources for maintaining S+core will be made
> available. Guess we'll see if the situation changes.
>
> Guenter
>
>
>> 2013/8/31 Guenter Roeck :
>>>
>>> The web site associated with the score architecture in MAINTAINERS
>>> is non-functional and available for sale. The last Ack from one
>>> of the maintainers was in December 2012. The main maintainer's last
>>> commit was in 2011. The last maintainer pull request was early 2011.
>>>
>>> Cc: Lennox Wu 
>>> Cc: Chen Liqin 
>>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck 
>>> ---
>>> More housekeeping.
>>>
>>> Maybe this removal request is a bit early, but architecture support seems
>>> to have vanished entirely. At the very least this puts interested parties
>>> (if there are any) on notice.
>>>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-09-02 Thread Lennox Wu 
Before we start the development of the S+core, Sunplus had licensed
ARM and MIPS. We develop S+core for other reason such as the price.
Some products on the web of Sunplus adopt S+core , for example
the SPV7050.(http://w3.sunplus.com/products/spv7050.asp) These products
could still be bought from the market. Some high-end products adopt
ARM or MIPS. So, there is no conflict for a company adopts multiple
architectures.

As I said, we recognize that we rarely update because of the limited
applications and rare requests from customers. Maybe we don’t
understand the culture enough; we think that it is unnecessary if we
have no new bugs or new functions, the thought seems wrong. We can
commit some patches in the near future.

Best,
Lennox

2013/9/2 Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net:
 On 09/01/2013 09:13 PM, Lennox Wu wrote:

 Dear all,

 Indeed, Sunplus S+core is not a popular architecture and there is no
 standalone to be sold so you should not find related news on the
 Internet.  However, the s+core is adopted by our SoCs and these SoCs
 are indeed adopted by some companies, we hope the architecture can be
 reserved to provide the more and more powerful Linux for our
 customers. It is true that we rarely update the code because that we
 are rarely requested to add new functions and to correct bugs by our
 customers, and it is also because we have no new product to release.
 In the near future, we will release some patches for the existed
 S+core architecture.


 Key question is not if the platform is popular, but if it is maintained.
 The commit log over the last two years strongly suggests that this is
 not the case. I suspect that the code is far from compilable at this point,
 much less executable. Unfortunately this is hard to verify, as a pre-built
 or even buildable toolchain is not easily available.

 From a company perspective, you might want to decide if you want to put
 resources into this architecture to keep it alive, or focus on more recent
 chips and architectures. Information available on the internet suggests
 that Suncore's more recent chips are based on ARM. Given that, it appears
 somewhat unlikely that resources for maintaining S+core will be made
 available. Guess we'll see if the situation changes.

 Guenter


 2013/8/31 Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net:

 The web site associated with the score architecture in MAINTAINERS
 is non-functional and available for sale. The last Ack from one
 of the maintainers was in December 2012. The main maintainer's last
 commit was in 2011. The last maintainer pull request was early 2011.

 Cc: Lennox Wu lennox...@gmail.com
 Cc: Chen Liqin liqin.c...@sunplusct.com
 Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net
 ---
 More housekeeping.

 Maybe this removal request is a bit early, but architecture support seems
 to have vanished entirely. At the very least this puts interested parties
 (if there are any) on notice.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-09-02 Thread Al Viro 
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 11:18:17PM +0800, Lennox Wu wrote:
 Before we start the development of the S+core, Sunplus had licensed
 ARM and MIPS. We develop S+core for other reason such as the price.
 Some products on the web of Sunplus adopt S+core , for example
 the SPV7050.(http://w3.sunplus.com/products/spv7050.asp) These products
 could still be bought from the market. Some high-end products adopt
 ARM or MIPS. So, there is no conflict for a company adopts multiple
 architectures.
 
 As I said, we recognize that we rarely update because of the limited
 applications and rare requests from customers. Maybe we don?t
 understand the culture enough; we think that it is unnecessary if we
 have no new bugs or new functions, the thought seems wrong. We can
 commit some patches in the near future.

New bugs as in don't bother with the stuff that had been broken since
the initial merge?  You might want to take a look at arch/score/kernel/entry.S,
for starters.  And compare these pieces of code:
brl r10 # Do The Real system call

cmpi.c  r4, 0
blt 1f  
ldi r8, 0
sw  r8, [r0, PT_R7]
b 2f
1:
cmpi.c  r4, -MAX_ERRNO - 1
ble 2f
ldi r8, 0x1;
sw  r8, [r0, PT_R7]
neg r4, r4
2:
sw  r4, [r0, PT_R4] # save result
- syscall without being traced vs.
brl r8

li  r8, -MAX_ERRNO - 1
sw  r8, [r0, PT_R7] # set error flag

neg r4, r4  # error
sw  r4, [r0, PT_R0] # set flag for syscall
# restarting
1:  sw  r4, [r0, PT_R2] # result
- syscall under ptrace.  Estimate the amount of testing (or reading, for
that matter) the second chunk had...

Both pieces are obviously derived from mips, except that
* mips ABI has return values go in r2, score one - in r4.  Note where
the ptraced variant stores the result...
* syscall restart logics on mips uses regs-regs[0] as syscall restart
allowed flag; score does no such thing - regs-is_syscall is used and no,
PT_R0 isn't equal to its offset
* both mips and non-traced path on score implement this:
r7 = (unsigned long)res = -MAX_ERRNO;
if (r7)
res = -res;
ptraced path on score, OTOH, doesn't do comparison at all, slaps -MAX_ERRNO-1
into r7, always negates the return value and, while we are at it, still
contains the target of lost conditional branch instruction.

And yes, it had been that way since the initial merge into the mainline tree -
this didn't come from subsequent bitrot.  Does that disqualify it from
being a new bug?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-09-02 Thread Guenter Roeck 

On 09/02/2013 08:18 AM, Lennox Wu wrote:

Before we start the development of the S+core, Sunplus had licensed
ARM and MIPS. We develop S+core for other reason such as the price.
Some products on the web of Sunplus adopt S+core , for example
the SPV7050.(http://w3.sunplus.com/products/spv7050.asp) These products
could still be bought from the market. Some high-end products adopt
ARM or MIPS. So, there is no conflict for a company adopts multiple
architectures.

As I said, we recognize that we rarely update because of the limited
applications and rare requests from customers. Maybe we don’t
understand the culture enough; we think that it is unnecessary if we
have no new bugs or new functions, the thought seems wrong. We can
commit some patches in the near future.



The point is not about submitting patches, it is about maintaining the code.
Even if you don't add functionality, one would expect that you ensure that
new kernel versions compile and run on your hardware.

Since January 2012, 68 patches have been applied to arch/score, pretty
much all of them addressing kernel API changes or global cleanup.
Only two of them got an Ack by one of the score maintainers.
This strongly suggests that you don't keep track of what is going on,
and at the very least raises the question if you do compile and test
new kernel versions on a regular basis. Even if you do, no one knows
about it, because 

As part of this process, I would expect the architecture maintainer to
accept incoming patches, test the same, and send pull requests to Linus.
The last time this happened was early 2011; since then all score patches
were sent to Linus through Andrew and a few other maintainers.
Actually, I don't see many signoffs from a score maintainer at all,
even from the very beginning.

As pointed out, the MAINTAINERS entry for score points to a
non-existing domain, as does the e-mail address of one of the
maintainers.

I would not call that maintained.

Guenter


Best,
Lennox

2013/9/2 Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net:

On 09/01/2013 09:13 PM, Lennox Wu wrote:


Dear all,

Indeed, Sunplus S+core is not a popular architecture and there is no
standalone to be sold so you should not find related news on the
Internet.  However, the s+core is adopted by our SoCs and these SoCs
are indeed adopted by some companies, we hope the architecture can be
reserved to provide the more and more powerful Linux for our
customers. It is true that we rarely update the code because that we
are rarely requested to add new functions and to correct bugs by our
customers, and it is also because we have no new product to release.
In the near future, we will release some patches for the existed
S+core architecture.



Key question is not if the platform is popular, but if it is maintained.
The commit log over the last two years strongly suggests that this is
not the case. I suspect that the code is far from compilable at this point,
much less executable. Unfortunately this is hard to verify, as a pre-built
or even buildable toolchain is not easily available.

 From a company perspective, you might want to decide if you want to put
resources into this architecture to keep it alive, or focus on more recent
chips and architectures. Information available on the internet suggests
that Suncore's more recent chips are based on ARM. Given that, it appears
somewhat unlikely that resources for maintaining S+core will be made
available. Guess we'll see if the situation changes.

Guenter



2013/8/31 Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net:


The web site associated with the score architecture in MAINTAINERS
is non-functional and available for sale. The last Ack from one
of the maintainers was in December 2012. The main maintainer's last
commit was in 2011. The last maintainer pull request was early 2011.

Cc: Lennox Wu lennox...@gmail.com
Cc: Chen Liqin liqin.c...@sunplusct.com
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net
---
More housekeeping.

Maybe this removal request is a bit early, but architecture support seems
to have vanished entirely. At the very least this puts interested parties
(if there are any) on notice.








--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-09-01 Thread Guenter Roeck 

On 09/01/2013 09:13 PM, Lennox Wu wrote:

Dear all,

Indeed, Sunplus S+core is not a popular architecture and there is no
standalone to be sold so you should not find related news on the
Internet.  However, the s+core is adopted by our SoCs and these SoCs
are indeed adopted by some companies, we hope the architecture can be
reserved to provide the more and more powerful Linux for our
customers. It is true that we rarely update the code because that we
are rarely requested to add new functions and to correct bugs by our
customers, and it is also because we have no new product to release.
In the near future, we will release some patches for the existed
S+core architecture.



Key question is not if the platform is popular, but if it is maintained.
The commit log over the last two years strongly suggests that this is
not the case. I suspect that the code is far from compilable at this point,
much less executable. Unfortunately this is hard to verify, as a pre-built
or even buildable toolchain is not easily available.

From a company perspective, you might want to decide if you want to put
resources into this architecture to keep it alive, or focus on more recent
chips and architectures. Information available on the internet suggests
that Suncore's more recent chips are based on ARM. Given that, it appears
somewhat unlikely that resources for maintaining S+core will be made
available. Guess we'll see if the situation changes.

Guenter


2013/8/31 Guenter Roeck :

The web site associated with the score architecture in MAINTAINERS
is non-functional and available for sale. The last Ack from one
of the maintainers was in December 2012. The main maintainer's last
commit was in 2011. The last maintainer pull request was early 2011.

Cc: Lennox Wu 
Cc: Chen Liqin 
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck 
---
More housekeeping.

Maybe this removal request is a bit early, but architecture support seems
to have vanished entirely. At the very least this puts interested parties
(if there are any) on notice.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-09-01 Thread Guenter Roeck 

On 09/01/2013 09:13 PM, Lennox Wu wrote:

Dear all,

Indeed, Sunplus S+core is not a popular architecture and there is no
standalone to be sold so you should not find related news on the
Internet.  However, the s+core is adopted by our SoCs and these SoCs
are indeed adopted by some companies, we hope the architecture can be
reserved to provide the more and more powerful Linux for our
customers. It is true that we rarely update the code because that we
are rarely requested to add new functions and to correct bugs by our
customers, and it is also because we have no new product to release.
In the near future, we will release some patches for the existed
S+core architecture.



Key question is not if the platform is popular, but if it is maintained.
The commit log over the last two years strongly suggests that this is
not the case. I suspect that the code is far from compilable at this point,
much less executable. Unfortunately this is hard to verify, as a pre-built
or even buildable toolchain is not easily available.

From a company perspective, you might want to decide if you want to put
resources into this architecture to keep it alive, or focus on more recent
chips and architectures. Information available on the internet suggests
that Suncore's more recent chips are based on ARM. Given that, it appears
somewhat unlikely that resources for maintaining S+core will be made
available. Guess we'll see if the situation changes.

Guenter


2013/8/31 Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net:

The web site associated with the score architecture in MAINTAINERS
is non-functional and available for sale. The last Ack from one
of the maintainers was in December 2012. The main maintainer's last
commit was in 2011. The last maintainer pull request was early 2011.

Cc: Lennox Wu lennox...@gmail.com
Cc: Chen Liqin liqin.c...@sunplusct.com
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net
---
More housekeeping.

Maybe this removal request is a bit early, but architecture support seems
to have vanished entirely. At the very least this puts interested parties
(if there are any) on notice.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-08-31 Thread Al Viro 
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 08:55:16PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> > Maybe this removal request is a bit early, but architecture support seems
> > to have vanished entirely. At the very least this puts interested parties
> > (if there are any) on notice.
> 
> AFAICT, this is the least maintained architecture we have at the moment,
> and your analysis is correct.
> 
> I think it can be removed unless we the maintainers have plans to become
> more active in the future or someone else steps up to maintain the
> architecture.

AFAICS, the architecture is stillborn - they planned to use it in game
consoles and stuff like that, but recession has hit the fan just as they
were about to do that.  Maintainers are not employed there anymore, gcc
had a commit updating maintainer address, but the new address is of
form ...+gcc@... and no corresponding update of address in the kernel
tree has happened.  In such situation I would really hesitate to put
the new address into MAINTAINERS...

IOW, this is an ex-parrot.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-08-31 Thread Arnd Bergmann 
On Saturday 31 August 2013, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> The web site associated with the score architecture in MAINTAINERS
> is non-functional and available for sale. The last Ack from one
> of the maintainers was in December 2012. The main maintainer's last
> commit was in 2011. The last maintainer pull request was early 2011.
> 
> Cc: Lennox Wu 
> Cc: Chen Liqin 
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck 
> ---
> More housekeeping.
> 
> Maybe this removal request is a bit early, but architecture support seems
> to have vanished entirely. At the very least this puts interested parties
> (if there are any) on notice.

AFAICT, this is the least maintained architecture we have at the moment,
and your analysis is correct.

I think it can be removed unless we the maintainers have plans to become
more active in the future or someone else steps up to maintain the
architecture.

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-08-31 Thread Arnd Bergmann 
On Saturday 31 August 2013, Guenter Roeck wrote:
 The web site associated with the score architecture in MAINTAINERS
 is non-functional and available for sale. The last Ack from one
 of the maintainers was in December 2012. The main maintainer's last
 commit was in 2011. The last maintainer pull request was early 2011.
 
 Cc: Lennox Wu lennox...@gmail.com
 Cc: Chen Liqin liqin.c...@sunplusct.com
 Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net
 ---
 More housekeeping.
 
 Maybe this removal request is a bit early, but architecture support seems
 to have vanished entirely. At the very least this puts interested parties
 (if there are any) on notice.

AFAICT, this is the least maintained architecture we have at the moment,
and your analysis is correct.

I think it can be removed unless we the maintainers have plans to become
more active in the future or someone else steps up to maintain the
architecture.

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] Remove support for score architecture

2013-08-31 Thread Al Viro 
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 08:55:16PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

  Maybe this removal request is a bit early, but architecture support seems
  to have vanished entirely. At the very least this puts interested parties
  (if there are any) on notice.
 
 AFAICT, this is the least maintained architecture we have at the moment,
 and your analysis is correct.
 
 I think it can be removed unless we the maintainers have plans to become
 more active in the future or someone else steps up to maintain the
 architecture.

AFAICS, the architecture is stillborn - they planned to use it in game
consoles and stuff like that, but recession has hit the fan just as they
were about to do that.  Maintainers are not employed there anymore, gcc
had a commit updating maintainer address, but the new address is of
form ...+gcc@... and no corresponding update of address in the kernel
tree has happened.  In such situation I would really hesitate to put
the new address into MAINTAINERS...

IOW, this is an ex-parrot.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/