Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 21/05/2020 à 12:38, Christophe Leroy a écrit :



Le 21/05/2020 à 09:02, Michael Ellerman a écrit :

Arnd Bergmann  writes:

+On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 2:04 PM Michael Ellerman  wrote:

Benjamin Herrenschmidt  writes:

On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 15:59 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:

Benjamin Herrenschmidt  writes:

IBM still put 40x cores inside POWER chips no ?


Oh yeah that's true. I guess most folks don't know that, or that they
run RHEL on them.


Is there a reason for not having those dts files in mainline then?
If nothing else, it would document what machines are still being
used with future kernels.


Sorry that part was a joke :D  Those chips don't run Linux.



Nice to know :)

What's the plan then, do we still want to keep 40x in the kernel ?

If yes, is it ok to drop the oldies anyway as done in my series 
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=172630 ?


(Note that this series will conflict with my series on hugepages on 8xx due to the 
PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES stuff. I can rebase the 40x modernisation series on top of the 8xx hugepages 
series if it is worth it)




Do we still want to keep 40x in the kernel ? We don't even have a running 40x QEMU machine as far as 
I know.


I'm asking because I'd like to drop the non CONFIG_VMAP_STACK code to simplify and ease stuff (code 
that works with vmalloc'ed stacks also works with stacks in linear memory), but I can't do it 
because 40x doesn't have VMAP_STACK and should I implement it for 40x, I have to means to test it.


So it would ease things if we could drop 40x completely, unless someone there has a 40x platform to 
test stuff.


Thanks
Christophe

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Michal Simek]

On 21. 05. 20 15:53, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Christophe Leroy  writes:
>> Le 21/05/2020 à 09:02, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
>>> Arnd Bergmann  writes:
 +On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 2:04 PM Michael Ellerman  
 wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt  writes:
>> On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 15:59 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> Benjamin Herrenschmidt  writes:
>> IBM still put 40x cores inside POWER chips no ?
>
> Oh yeah that's true. I guess most folks don't know that, or that they
> run RHEL on them.

 Is there a reason for not having those dts files in mainline then?
 If nothing else, it would document what machines are still being
 used with future kernels.
>>>
>>> Sorry that part was a joke :D  Those chips don't run Linux.
>>>
>>
>> Nice to know :)
>>
>> What's the plan then, do we still want to keep 40x in the kernel ?
> 
> I guess we keep it for now.
> 
> Perhaps we mark it BROKEN for a few releases and see if anyone
> complains?

I would like to get at least that xilinx patch to the tree to unblock
our changes on interrupt controller.

Thanks,
Michal

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Michael Ellerman]

Christophe Leroy  writes:
> Le 21/05/2020 à 09:02, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
>> Arnd Bergmann  writes:
>>> +On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 2:04 PM Michael Ellerman  
>>> wrote:
 Benjamin Herrenschmidt  writes:
> On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 15:59 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Benjamin Herrenschmidt  writes:
> IBM still put 40x cores inside POWER chips no ?

 Oh yeah that's true. I guess most folks don't know that, or that they
 run RHEL on them.
>>>
>>> Is there a reason for not having those dts files in mainline then?
>>> If nothing else, it would document what machines are still being
>>> used with future kernels.
>> 
>> Sorry that part was a joke :D  Those chips don't run Linux.
>> 
>
> Nice to know :)
>
> What's the plan then, do we still want to keep 40x in the kernel ?

I guess we keep it for now.

Perhaps we mark it BROKEN for a few releases and see if anyone
complains?

> If yes, is it ok to drop the oldies anyway as done in my series 
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=172630 ?

Yeah let's do it. I would love to get rid of that horrible
PPC405_ERR77() sprinkled all through our atomics.

> (Note that this series will conflict with my series on hugepages on 8xx 
> due to the PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES stuff. I can rebase the 40x modernisation 
> series on top of the 8xx hugepages series if it is worth it)

Yeah if you can rebase that would be great.

cheers

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 21/05/2020 à 09:02, Michael Ellerman a écrit :

Arnd Bergmann  writes:

+On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 2:04 PM Michael Ellerman  wrote:

Benjamin Herrenschmidt  writes:

On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 15:59 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:

Benjamin Herrenschmidt  writes:

IBM still put 40x cores inside POWER chips no ?


Oh yeah that's true. I guess most folks don't know that, or that they
run RHEL on them.


Is there a reason for not having those dts files in mainline then?
If nothing else, it would document what machines are still being
used with future kernels.


Sorry that part was a joke :D  Those chips don't run Linux.



Nice to know :)

What's the plan then, do we still want to keep 40x in the kernel ?

If yes, is it ok to drop the oldies anyway as done in my series 
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=172630 ?


(Note that this series will conflict with my series on hugepages on 8xx 
due to the PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES stuff. I can rebase the 40x modernisation 
series on top of the 8xx hugepages series if it is worth it)


Christophe

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Michael Ellerman]

Arnd Bergmann  writes:
> +On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 2:04 PM Michael Ellerman  wrote:
>> Benjamin Herrenschmidt  writes:
>> > On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 15:59 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> >> Benjamin Herrenschmidt  writes:
>> > IBM still put 40x cores inside POWER chips no ?
>>
>> Oh yeah that's true. I guess most folks don't know that, or that they
>> run RHEL on them.
>
> Is there a reason for not having those dts files in mainline then?
> If nothing else, it would document what machines are still being
> used with future kernels.

Sorry that part was a joke :D  Those chips don't run Linux.

cheers

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Arnd Bergmann]

+On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 2:04 PM Michael Ellerman  wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt  writes:
> > On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 15:59 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >> Benjamin Herrenschmidt  writes:
> > IBM still put 40x cores inside POWER chips no ?
>
> Oh yeah that's true. I guess most folks don't know that, or that they
> run RHEL on them.

Is there a reason for not having those dts files in mainline then?
If nothing else, it would document what machines are still being
used with future kernels.

Also, if that's the only 405 based product that is still relevant with
a 5.7+ kernel, it may be useful to know at which point they
move to a 476 core and stop updating kernels on the old ones.

  Arnd

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Michael Ellerman]

Benjamin Herrenschmidt  writes:
> On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 15:59 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Benjamin Herrenschmidt  writes:
>> > On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 16:30 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> > > I have no attachment to 40x, and I'd certainly be happy to have
>> > > less
>> > > code in the tree, we struggle to keep even the modern platforms
>> > > well
>> > > maintained.
>> > > 
>> > > At the same time I don't want to render anyone's hardware
>> > > obsolete
>> > > unnecessarily. But if there's really no one using 40x then we
>> > > should
>> > > remove it, it could well be broken already.
>> > > 
>> > > So I guess post a series to do the removal and we'll see if
>> > > anyone
>> > > speaks up.
>> > 
>> > We shouldn't remove 40x completely. Just remove the Xilinx 405
>> > stuff.
>> 
>> Congratulations on becoming the 40x maintainer!
>
> Didn't I give you my last 40x system ? :-)

Probably, but my desk is nearly as messy as yours so it's probably
buried under some even more obscure hardware :P

> IBM still put 40x cores inside POWER chips no ?

Oh yeah that's true. I guess most folks don't know that, or that they
run RHEL on them.

cheers

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 08/04/2020 à 01:32, Benjamin Herrenschmidt a écrit :

On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 15:59 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:

Benjamin Herrenschmidt  writes:

On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 16:30 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:

I have no attachment to 40x, and I'd certainly be happy to have
less
code in the tree, we struggle to keep even the modern platforms
well
maintained.

At the same time I don't want to render anyone's hardware
obsolete
unnecessarily. But if there's really no one using 40x then we
should
remove it, it could well be broken already.

So I guess post a series to do the removal and we'll see if
anyone
speaks up.


We shouldn't remove 40x completely. Just remove the Xilinx 405
stuff.


Congratulations on becoming the 40x maintainer!


Didn't I give you my last 40x system ? :-) IBM still put 40x cores
inside POWER chips no ?



According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_400), 405 
cores are used in modern equipments (how modern ?), however 403 has 
never reached the market.


Can we start removing 403 stuff ? That's not a lot, but still.

Does anybody knows anything about this ERRATUM 77 stuff ? Is that still 
an issue with all 405 cores or has this been fixed long time ago and can 
be removed ?


Christophe

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Ben,

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 1:34 AM Benjamin Herrenschmidt
 wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 15:59 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Benjamin Herrenschmidt  writes:
> > > On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 16:30 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > > I have no attachment to 40x, and I'd certainly be happy to have
> > > > less
> > > > code in the tree, we struggle to keep even the modern platforms
> > > > well
> > > > maintained.
> > > >
> > > > At the same time I don't want to render anyone's hardware
> > > > obsolete
> > > > unnecessarily. But if there's really no one using 40x then we
> > > > should
> > > > remove it, it could well be broken already.
> > > >
> > > > So I guess post a series to do the removal and we'll see if
> > > > anyone
> > > > speaks up.
> > >
> > > We shouldn't remove 40x completely. Just remove the Xilinx 405
> > > stuff.
> >
> > Congratulations on becoming the 40x maintainer!
>
> Didn't I give you my last 40x system ? :-) IBM still put 40x cores
> inside POWER chips no ?

Good to know!

Are they still big-endian, or have they been corrupted by the LE frenzy,
too? ;)

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 15:59 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt  writes:
> > On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 16:30 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > I have no attachment to 40x, and I'd certainly be happy to have
> > > less
> > > code in the tree, we struggle to keep even the modern platforms
> > > well
> > > maintained.
> > > 
> > > At the same time I don't want to render anyone's hardware
> > > obsolete
> > > unnecessarily. But if there's really no one using 40x then we
> > > should
> > > remove it, it could well be broken already.
> > > 
> > > So I guess post a series to do the removal and we'll see if
> > > anyone
> > > speaks up.
> > 
> > We shouldn't remove 40x completely. Just remove the Xilinx 405
> > stuff.
> 
> Congratulations on becoming the 40x maintainer!

Didn't I give you my last 40x system ? :-) IBM still put 40x cores
inside POWER chips no ?

Cheers,
Ben.

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Michael Ellerman]

Benjamin Herrenschmidt  writes:
> On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 16:30 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> I have no attachment to 40x, and I'd certainly be happy to have less
>> code in the tree, we struggle to keep even the modern platforms well
>> maintained.
>> 
>> At the same time I don't want to render anyone's hardware obsolete
>> unnecessarily. But if there's really no one using 40x then we should
>> remove it, it could well be broken already.
>> 
>> So I guess post a series to do the removal and we'll see if anyone
>> speaks up.
>
> We shouldn't remove 40x completely. Just remove the Xilinx 405 stuff.

Congratulations on becoming the 40x maintainer!

cheers

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 11:07 PM Arnd Bergmann  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:51 PM Segher Boessenkool
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 08:56:23AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > > While we are at it, can we also remove the 601 ? This one is also full
> > > of workarounds and diverges a bit from other 6xx.
> > >
> > > I'm unable to find its end of life date, but it was on the market in
> > > 1994, so I guess it must be outdated by more than 10-15 yr old now ?
> >
> > There probably are still some people running Linux on 601 powermacs.
>
> It could be marked as "BROKEN" for a year to find out for sure ;-)
>
> Apparently there were only two or three models that are old enough to
> have a 601 and new enough to run Linux with PCI and OF: 7200/8200
> and 7500. These were sold for less than 18 months around 1996,
> though one can still find them on eBay.

A. Wilcox said on IRC regarding 601 support in Adélie Linux:

"right now we are primarily targeting G3, though 603 should be supported.
601/601e support is planned to be added for 2.0 (next year)."

  Arnd

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 16:30 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> I have no attachment to 40x, and I'd certainly be happy to have less
> code in the tree, we struggle to keep even the modern platforms well
> maintained.
> 
> At the same time I don't want to render anyone's hardware obsolete
> unnecessarily. But if there's really no one using 40x then we should
> remove it, it could well be broken already.
> 
> So I guess post a series to do the removal and we'll see if anyone
> speaks up.

We shouldn't remove 40x completely. Just remove the Xilinx 405 stuff.

Cheers,
Ben.

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:51 PM Segher Boessenkool
 wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 08:56:23AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > While we are at it, can we also remove the 601 ? This one is also full
> > of workarounds and diverges a bit from other 6xx.
> >
> > I'm unable to find its end of life date, but it was on the market in
> > 1994, so I guess it must be outdated by more than 10-15 yr old now ?
>
> There probably are still some people running Linux on 601 powermacs.

It could be marked as "BROKEN" for a year to find out for sure ;-)

Apparently there were only two or three models that are old enough to
have a 601 and new enough to run Linux with PCI and OF: 7200/8200
and 7500. These were sold for less than 18 months around 1996,
though one can still find them on eBay.

   Arnd

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 08:56:23AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> While we are at it, can we also remove the 601 ? This one is also full 
> of workarounds and diverges a bit from other 6xx.
> 
> I'm unable to find its end of life date, but it was on the market in 
> 1994, so I guess it must be outdated by more than 10-15 yr old now ?

There probably are still some people running Linux on 601 powermacs.


Segher

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 31/03/2020 à 12:04, Michal Simek a écrit :

On 31. 03. 20 11:49, Christophe Leroy wrote:



Le 31/03/2020 à 09:19, Christophe Leroy a écrit :



Le 31/03/2020 à 08:59, Michal Simek a écrit :

On 31. 03. 20 8:56, Christophe Leroy wrote:



Le 31/03/2020 à 07:30, Michael Ellerman a écrit :

Christophe Leroy  writes:

Le 27/03/2020 à 15:14, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 02:22:55PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:15 PM Andy Shevchenko
 wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 03:10:26PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 01:54:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:12 PM Michal Simek
 wrote:

...


It does raise a follow-up question about ppc40x though: is it
time to
retire all of it?


Who knows?

I have in possession nice WD My Book Live, based on this
architecture, and I
won't it gone from modern kernel support. OTOH I understand that
amount of real
users not too big.


+Cc: Christian Lamparter, whom I owe for that WD box.


According to https://openwrt.org/toh/wd/mybooklive, that one is
based on
APM82181/ppc464, so it is about several generations newer than
what I
asked about (ppc40x).


Ah, and I have Amiga board, but that one is being used only for
testing, so,
I don't care much.


I think there are a couple of ppc440 based Amiga boards, but again,
not 405
to my knowledge.


Ah, you are right. No objections from ppc40x removal!


Removing 40x would help cleaning things a bit. For instance 40x is
the
last platform still having PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES. So if we can remove
40x
we can get rid of PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES completely.

If no one objects, I can prepare a series to drop support for 40x
completely.

Michael, any thought ?


I have no attachment to 40x, and I'd certainly be happy to have less
code in the tree, we struggle to keep even the modern platforms well
maintained.

At the same time I don't want to render anyone's hardware obsolete
unnecessarily. But if there's really no one using 40x then we should
remove it, it could well be broken already.

So I guess post a series to do the removal and we'll see if anyone
speaks up.



Ok, series sent out, see
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=167757


ok. I see you have done it completely independently of my patchset.
Would be better if you can base it on the top of my 2 patches because
they are in conflict now and I need to also remove virtex 44x platform
also with alsa driver.



I can't see your first patch, only the second one shows up in the
series, see
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=167757




Ok, I found your first patch on another patchwork, it doesn't touch any
file in arch/powerpc/


There was just driver dependency on symbol which is removed by 2/2.
Let's see what you get from kbuild if any symbol is removed but still
used in drivers folder.


Nothing bad apparently, see build test at 
http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/head/a4890e3fb046950e9a62dc3eff5b37469551e823/


Christophe

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Michal Simek]

On 31. 03. 20 11:49, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 31/03/2020 à 09:19, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
>>
>>
>> Le 31/03/2020 à 08:59, Michal Simek a écrit :
>>> On 31. 03. 20 8:56, Christophe Leroy wrote:


 Le 31/03/2020 à 07:30, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
> Christophe Leroy  writes:
>> Le 27/03/2020 à 15:14, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 02:22:55PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
 On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:15 PM Andy Shevchenko
  wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 03:10:26PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 01:54:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:12 PM Michal Simek
>>>  wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> It does raise a follow-up question about ppc40x though: is it
>>> time to
>>> retire all of it?
>>
>> Who knows?
>>
>> I have in possession nice WD My Book Live, based on this
>> architecture, and I
>> won't it gone from modern kernel support. OTOH I understand that
>> amount of real
>> users not too big.
>
> +Cc: Christian Lamparter, whom I owe for that WD box.

 According to https://openwrt.org/toh/wd/mybooklive, that one is
 based on
 APM82181/ppc464, so it is about several generations newer than
 what I
 asked about (ppc40x).

>> Ah, and I have Amiga board, but that one is being used only for
>> testing, so,
>> I don't care much.

 I think there are a couple of ppc440 based Amiga boards, but again,
 not 405
 to my knowledge.
>>>
>>> Ah, you are right. No objections from ppc40x removal!
>>
>> Removing 40x would help cleaning things a bit. For instance 40x is
>> the
>> last platform still having PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES. So if we can remove
>> 40x
>> we can get rid of PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES completely.
>>
>> If no one objects, I can prepare a series to drop support for 40x
>> completely.
>>
>> Michael, any thought ?
>
> I have no attachment to 40x, and I'd certainly be happy to have less
> code in the tree, we struggle to keep even the modern platforms well
> maintained.
>
> At the same time I don't want to render anyone's hardware obsolete
> unnecessarily. But if there's really no one using 40x then we should
> remove it, it could well be broken already.
>
> So I guess post a series to do the removal and we'll see if anyone
> speaks up.
>

 Ok, series sent out, see
 https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=167757
>>>
>>> ok. I see you have done it completely independently of my patchset.
>>> Would be better if you can base it on the top of my 2 patches because
>>> they are in conflict now and I need to also remove virtex 44x platform
>>> also with alsa driver.
>>>
>>
>> I can't see your first patch, only the second one shows up in the
>> series, see
>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=167757
>>
> 
> 
> Ok, I found your first patch on another patchwork, it doesn't touch any
> file in arch/powerpc/

There was just driver dependency on symbol which is removed by 2/2.
Let's see what you get from kbuild if any symbol is removed but still
used in drivers folder.

> 
> I sent a v2 series with your powerpc patch as patch 2/11
> 
> See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=167766

Thanks,
Michal

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 31/03/2020 à 09:19, Christophe Leroy a écrit :



Le 31/03/2020 à 08:59, Michal Simek a écrit :

On 31. 03. 20 8:56, Christophe Leroy wrote:



Le 31/03/2020 à 07:30, Michael Ellerman a écrit :

Christophe Leroy  writes:

Le 27/03/2020 à 15:14, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 02:22:55PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:15 PM Andy Shevchenko
 wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 03:10:26PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 01:54:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:12 PM Michal Simek
 wrote:

...


It does raise a follow-up question about ppc40x though: is it
time to
retire all of it?


Who knows?

I have in possession nice WD My Book Live, based on this
architecture, and I
won't it gone from modern kernel support. OTOH I understand that
amount of real
users not too big.


+Cc: Christian Lamparter, whom I owe for that WD box.


According to https://openwrt.org/toh/wd/mybooklive, that one is
based on
APM82181/ppc464, so it is about several generations newer than 
what I

asked about (ppc40x).


Ah, and I have Amiga board, but that one is being used only for
testing, so,
I don't care much.


I think there are a couple of ppc440 based Amiga boards, but again,
not 405
to my knowledge.


Ah, you are right. No objections from ppc40x removal!


Removing 40x would help cleaning things a bit. For instance 40x is the
last platform still having PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES. So if we can remove 40x
we can get rid of PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES completely.

If no one objects, I can prepare a series to drop support for 40x
completely.

Michael, any thought ?


I have no attachment to 40x, and I'd certainly be happy to have less
code in the tree, we struggle to keep even the modern platforms well
maintained.

At the same time I don't want to render anyone's hardware obsolete
unnecessarily. But if there's really no one using 40x then we should
remove it, it could well be broken already.

So I guess post a series to do the removal and we'll see if anyone
speaks up.



Ok, series sent out, see
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=167757


ok. I see you have done it completely independently of my patchset.
Would be better if you can base it on the top of my 2 patches because
they are in conflict now and I need to also remove virtex 44x platform
also with alsa driver.



I can't see your first patch, only the second one shows up in the 
series, see 
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=167757





Ok, I found your first patch on another patchwork, it doesn't touch any 
file in arch/powerpc/


I sent a v2 series with your powerpc patch as patch 2/11

See https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=167766

Christophe

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 31/03/2020 à 08:59, Michal Simek a écrit :

On 31. 03. 20 8:56, Christophe Leroy wrote:



Le 31/03/2020 à 07:30, Michael Ellerman a écrit :

Christophe Leroy  writes:

Le 27/03/2020 à 15:14, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 02:22:55PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:15 PM Andy Shevchenko
 wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 03:10:26PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 01:54:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:12 PM Michal Simek
 wrote:

...


It does raise a follow-up question about ppc40x though: is it
time to
retire all of it?


Who knows?

I have in possession nice WD My Book Live, based on this
architecture, and I
won't it gone from modern kernel support. OTOH I understand that
amount of real
users not too big.


+Cc: Christian Lamparter, whom I owe for that WD box.


According to https://openwrt.org/toh/wd/mybooklive, that one is
based on
APM82181/ppc464, so it is about several generations newer than what I
asked about (ppc40x).


Ah, and I have Amiga board, but that one is being used only for
testing, so,
I don't care much.


I think there are a couple of ppc440 based Amiga boards, but again,
not 405
to my knowledge.


Ah, you are right. No objections from ppc40x removal!


Removing 40x would help cleaning things a bit. For instance 40x is the
last platform still having PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES. So if we can remove 40x
we can get rid of PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES completely.

If no one objects, I can prepare a series to drop support for 40x
completely.

Michael, any thought ?


I have no attachment to 40x, and I'd certainly be happy to have less
code in the tree, we struggle to keep even the modern platforms well
maintained.

At the same time I don't want to render anyone's hardware obsolete
unnecessarily. But if there's really no one using 40x then we should
remove it, it could well be broken already.

So I guess post a series to do the removal and we'll see if anyone
speaks up.



Ok, series sent out, see
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=167757


ok. I see you have done it completely independently of my patchset.
Would be better if you can base it on the top of my 2 patches because
they are in conflict now and I need to also remove virtex 44x platform
also with alsa driver.



I can't see your first patch, only the second one shows up in the 
series, see 
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=167757


Christophe

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Michal Simek]

On 31. 03. 20 8:56, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 31/03/2020 à 07:30, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
>> Christophe Leroy  writes:
>>> Le 27/03/2020 à 15:14, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :
 On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 02:22:55PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:15 PM Andy Shevchenko
>  wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 03:10:26PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 01:54:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
 On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:12 PM Michal Simek
  wrote:
 ...

 It does raise a follow-up question about ppc40x though: is it
 time to
 retire all of it?
>>>
>>> Who knows?
>>>
>>> I have in possession nice WD My Book Live, based on this
>>> architecture, and I
>>> won't it gone from modern kernel support. OTOH I understand that
>>> amount of real
>>> users not too big.
>>
>> +Cc: Christian Lamparter, whom I owe for that WD box.
>
> According to https://openwrt.org/toh/wd/mybooklive, that one is
> based on
> APM82181/ppc464, so it is about several generations newer than what I
> asked about (ppc40x).
>
>>> Ah, and I have Amiga board, but that one is being used only for
>>> testing, so,
>>> I don't care much.
>
> I think there are a couple of ppc440 based Amiga boards, but again,
> not 405
> to my knowledge.

 Ah, you are right. No objections from ppc40x removal!
>>>
>>> Removing 40x would help cleaning things a bit. For instance 40x is the
>>> last platform still having PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES. So if we can remove 40x
>>> we can get rid of PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES completely.
>>>
>>> If no one objects, I can prepare a series to drop support for 40x
>>> completely.
>>>
>>> Michael, any thought ?
>>
>> I have no attachment to 40x, and I'd certainly be happy to have less
>> code in the tree, we struggle to keep even the modern platforms well
>> maintained.
>>
>> At the same time I don't want to render anyone's hardware obsolete
>> unnecessarily. But if there's really no one using 40x then we should
>> remove it, it could well be broken already.
>>
>> So I guess post a series to do the removal and we'll see if anyone
>> speaks up.
>>
> 
> Ok, series sent out, see
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=167757

ok. I see you have done it completely independently of my patchset.
Would be better if you can base it on the top of my 2 patches because
they are in conflict now and I need to also remove virtex 44x platform
also with alsa driver.

Thanks,
Michal

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 31/03/2020 à 07:30, Michael Ellerman a écrit :

Christophe Leroy  writes:

Le 27/03/2020 à 15:14, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 02:22:55PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:15 PM Andy Shevchenko
 wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 03:10:26PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 01:54:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:12 PM Michal Simek  wrote:

...


It does raise a follow-up question about ppc40x though: is it time to
retire all of it?


Who knows?

I have in possession nice WD My Book Live, based on this architecture, and I
won't it gone from modern kernel support. OTOH I understand that amount of real
users not too big.


+Cc: Christian Lamparter, whom I owe for that WD box.


According to https://openwrt.org/toh/wd/mybooklive, that one is based on
APM82181/ppc464, so it is about several generations newer than what I
asked about (ppc40x).


Ah, and I have Amiga board, but that one is being used only for testing, so,
I don't care much.


I think there are a couple of ppc440 based Amiga boards, but again, not 405
to my knowledge.


Ah, you are right. No objections from ppc40x removal!


Removing 40x would help cleaning things a bit. For instance 40x is the
last platform still having PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES. So if we can remove 40x
we can get rid of PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES completely.

If no one objects, I can prepare a series to drop support for 40x
completely.

Michael, any thought ?


I have no attachment to 40x, and I'd certainly be happy to have less
code in the tree, we struggle to keep even the modern platforms well
maintained.

At the same time I don't want to render anyone's hardware obsolete
unnecessarily. But if there's really no one using 40x then we should
remove it, it could well be broken already.

So I guess post a series to do the removal and we'll see if anyone
speaks up.



Ok, series sent out, see 
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=167757



While we are at it, can we also remove the 601 ? This one is also full 
of workarounds and diverges a bit from other 6xx.


I'm unable to find its end of life date, but it was on the market in 
1994, so I guess it must be outdated by more than 10-15 yr old now ?


Christophe

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Michael Ellerman]

Christophe Leroy  writes:
> Le 27/03/2020 à 15:14, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 02:22:55PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:15 PM Andy Shevchenko
>>>  wrote:
 On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 03:10:26PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 01:54:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:12 PM Michal Simek  
>> wrote:
>> ...
>> 
>> It does raise a follow-up question about ppc40x though: is it time to
>> retire all of it?
>
> Who knows?
>
> I have in possession nice WD My Book Live, based on this architecture, 
> and I
> won't it gone from modern kernel support. OTOH I understand that amount 
> of real
> users not too big.

 +Cc: Christian Lamparter, whom I owe for that WD box.
>>>
>>> According to https://openwrt.org/toh/wd/mybooklive, that one is based on
>>> APM82181/ppc464, so it is about several generations newer than what I
>>> asked about (ppc40x).
>>>
> Ah, and I have Amiga board, but that one is being used only for testing, 
> so,
> I don't care much.
>>>
>>> I think there are a couple of ppc440 based Amiga boards, but again, not 405
>>> to my knowledge.
>> 
>> Ah, you are right. No objections from ppc40x removal!
>
> Removing 40x would help cleaning things a bit. For instance 40x is the 
> last platform still having PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES. So if we can remove 40x 
> we can get rid of PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES completely.
>
> If no one objects, I can prepare a series to drop support for 40x 
> completely.
>
> Michael, any thought ?

I have no attachment to 40x, and I'd certainly be happy to have less
code in the tree, we struggle to keep even the modern platforms well
maintained.

At the same time I don't want to render anyone's hardware obsolete
unnecessarily. But if there's really no one using 40x then we should
remove it, it could well be broken already.

So I guess post a series to do the removal and we'll see if anyone
speaks up.

cheers

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 4:07 PM Christian Lamparter  wrote:
>
> (Sorry for the bounces, yes my smarthost mail setup breaks from time to time
> and I had to cut the CC since it complained about the length.)
>
> I guess we should think about upstreaming the MyBook Live DTS. Problem here
> is that we deviated a bit from the canyonlands.dts/bluestone.dts structure
> by having a skeleton apm82181.dtsi with most of the SoC defintition and a
> wd-mybooklive.dts for the device.

I don't see much of a problem with that. If the chips are quite
different, then this
would be the right way to do it, and it matches how most dts files are
structured
on arm and others as well.

It would be nice to move over the the bluestone .dts to the apm82181.dtsi file
when that gets added, if only to ensure they use the same description for each
node, but that shouldn't stop the addition of the new file if that is needed for
distros to make use of a popular device.
I see a couple of additional files in openwrt [1],

[obviously, I'm not actually the one in charge here, the decision is with the
 powerpc maintainers].

Arnd

[1] 
https://git.openwrt.org/?p=openwrt/openwrt.git;a=tree;f=target/linux/apm821xx/dts;h=d359ba4ed83547438581dd40105e5100d8240beb;hb=HEAD

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Christian Lamparter]

(Sorry for the bounces, yes my smarthost mail setup breaks from time to time
and I had to cut the CC since it complained about the length.)

On Saturday, 28 March 2020 12:17:58 CET Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> Le 27/03/2020 à 15:14, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 02:22:55PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:15 PM Andy Shevchenko
>>>  wrote:
 On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 03:10:26PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 01:54:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:12 PM Michal Simek 
>>  wrote:
>> It does raise a follow-up question about ppc40x though: is it time to
>> retire all of it?
>
> Who knows?
>
> I have in possession nice WD My Book Live, based on this 
> architecture, and I won't it gone from modern kernel support.
> OTOH I understand that amount of real users not too big.
Hm, can't add much to Xilinx ppc405/440 removal patch debate. 

But as for the APM82181 with it's PPC464:

The last time I checked was with 5.6-rc4, it worked fine on the APM82181
(a MyBook Live) device. I've made a "build your own powerpc debian sid"
image thing that takes the latest kernel git and up-to-date packages
from debian ports (they still make powerpc packages!): 
 .

Though, this is small potatoes. There exists a much more popular project
by Ewald Comhaire (CCed): 
that serves the largest userbase:


I guess we should think about upstreaming the MyBook Live DTS. Problem here
is that we deviated a bit from the canyonlands.dts/bluestone.dts structure
by having a skeleton apm82181.dtsi with most of the SoC defintition and a
wd-mybooklive.dts for the device.

 


Cheers,
Christian

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 27/03/2020 à 15:14, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 02:22:55PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:15 PM Andy Shevchenko
 wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 03:10:26PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 01:54:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:12 PM Michal Simek  wrote:


...


It does raise a follow-up question about ppc40x though: is it time to
retire all of it?


Who knows?

I have in possession nice WD My Book Live, based on this architecture, and I
won't it gone from modern kernel support. OTOH I understand that amount of real
users not too big.


+Cc: Christian Lamparter, whom I owe for that WD box.


According to https://openwrt.org/toh/wd/mybooklive, that one is based on
APM82181/ppc464, so it is about several generations newer than what I
asked about (ppc40x).


Ah, and I have Amiga board, but that one is being used only for testing, so,
I don't care much.


I think there are a couple of ppc440 based Amiga boards, but again, not 405
to my knowledge.


Ah, you are right. No objections from ppc40x removal!



Removing 40x would help cleaning things a bit. For instance 40x is the 
last platform still having PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES. So if we can remove 40x 
we can get rid of PTE_ATOMIC_UPDATES completely.



If no one objects, I can prepare a series to drop support for 40x 
completely.


Michael, any thought ?

Christophe

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 02:22:55PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:15 PM Andy Shevchenko
>  wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 03:10:26PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 01:54:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:12 PM Michal Simek  
> > > > wrote:

...

> > > > It does raise a follow-up question about ppc40x though: is it time to
> > > > retire all of it?
> > >
> > > Who knows?
> > >
> > > I have in possession nice WD My Book Live, based on this architecture, 
> > > and I
> > > won't it gone from modern kernel support. OTOH I understand that amount 
> > > of real
> > > users not too big.
> >
> > +Cc: Christian Lamparter, whom I owe for that WD box.
> 
> According to https://openwrt.org/toh/wd/mybooklive, that one is based on
> APM82181/ppc464, so it is about several generations newer than what I
> asked about (ppc40x).
> 
> > > Ah, and I have Amiga board, but that one is being used only for testing, 
> > > so,
> > > I don't care much.
> 
> I think there are a couple of ppc440 based Amiga boards, but again, not 405
> to my knowledge.

Ah, you are right. No objections from ppc40x removal!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:15 PM Andy Shevchenko
 wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 03:10:26PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 01:54:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:12 PM Michal Simek  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > recently we wanted to update xilinx intc driver and we found that 
> > > > function
> > > > which we wanted to remove is still wired by ancient Xilinx PowerPC
> > > > platforms. Here is the thread about it.
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/48d3232d-0f1d-42ea-3109-f44bbabfa...@xilinx.com/
> > > >
> > > > I have been talking about it internally and there is no interest in 
> > > > these
> > > > platforms and it is also orphan for quite a long time. None is really
> > > > running/testing these platforms regularly that's why I think it makes 
> > > > sense
> > > > to remove them also with drivers which are specific to this platform.
> > > >
> > > > U-Boot support was removed in 2017 without anybody complain about it
> > > > https://github.com/Xilinx/u-boot-xlnx/commit/98f705c9cefdfdba62c069821bbba10273a0a8ed
> > > >
> > > > Based on current ppc/next.
> > > >
> > > > If anyone has any objection about it, please let me know.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann 
> > >
> > > This looks reasonable to me as well, in particular as the code only
> > > supports the two
> > > ppc44x virtex developer boards and no commercial products.
> > >
> > > It does raise a follow-up question about ppc40x though: is it time to
> > > retire all of it?
> >
> > Who knows?
> >
> > I have in possession nice WD My Book Live, based on this architecture, and I
> > won't it gone from modern kernel support. OTOH I understand that amount of 
> > real
> > users not too big.
>
> +Cc: Christian Lamparter, whom I owe for that WD box.

According to https://openwrt.org/toh/wd/mybooklive, that one is based on
APM82181/ppc464, so it is about several generations newer than what I
asked about (ppc40x).

> > Ah, and I have Amiga board, but that one is being used only for testing, so,
> > I don't care much.

I think there are a couple of ppc440 based Amiga boards, but again, not 405
to my knowledge.

  Arnd

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 03:10:26PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 01:54:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:12 PM Michal Simek  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > recently we wanted to update xilinx intc driver and we found that function
> > > which we wanted to remove is still wired by ancient Xilinx PowerPC
> > > platforms. Here is the thread about it.
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/48d3232d-0f1d-42ea-3109-f44bbabfa...@xilinx.com/
> > >
> > > I have been talking about it internally and there is no interest in these
> > > platforms and it is also orphan for quite a long time. None is really
> > > running/testing these platforms regularly that's why I think it makes 
> > > sense
> > > to remove them also with drivers which are specific to this platform.
> > >
> > > U-Boot support was removed in 2017 without anybody complain about it
> > > https://github.com/Xilinx/u-boot-xlnx/commit/98f705c9cefdfdba62c069821bbba10273a0a8ed
> > >
> > > Based on current ppc/next.
> > >
> > > If anyone has any objection about it, please let me know.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann 
> > 
> > This looks reasonable to me as well, in particular as the code only
> > supports the two
> > ppc44x virtex developer boards and no commercial products.
> > 
> > It does raise a follow-up question about ppc40x though: is it time to
> > retire all of it?
> 
> Who knows?
> 
> I have in possession nice WD My Book Live, based on this architecture, and I
> won't it gone from modern kernel support. OTOH I understand that amount of 
> real
> users not too big.

+Cc: Christian Lamparter, whom I owe for that WD box.

> 
> Ah, and I have Amiga board, but that one is being used only for testing, so,
> I don't care much.
> 
> > The other ppc405 machines appear to have seen even fewer updates after the
> > OpenBlockS 600 got added in 2011, so it's possible nobody is using them any 
> > more
> > with modern kernels.
> > 
> > I see that OpenWRT removed both ppc40x and ppc44x exactly a year ago after
> > they had not been maintained for years.
> > 
> > However, 44x (in its ppc476 incarnation) is clearly still is used
> > through the fsp2 platform,
> > and can not be deprecated at least until that is known to have stopped
> > getting kernel
> > updates.
> > 
> > Arnd
> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
> 
> 

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 01:54:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:12 PM Michal Simek  wrote:
> >
> > recently we wanted to update xilinx intc driver and we found that function
> > which we wanted to remove is still wired by ancient Xilinx PowerPC
> > platforms. Here is the thread about it.
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/48d3232d-0f1d-42ea-3109-f44bbabfa...@xilinx.com/
> >
> > I have been talking about it internally and there is no interest in these
> > platforms and it is also orphan for quite a long time. None is really
> > running/testing these platforms regularly that's why I think it makes sense
> > to remove them also with drivers which are specific to this platform.
> >
> > U-Boot support was removed in 2017 without anybody complain about it
> > https://github.com/Xilinx/u-boot-xlnx/commit/98f705c9cefdfdba62c069821bbba10273a0a8ed
> >
> > Based on current ppc/next.
> >
> > If anyone has any objection about it, please let me know.
> 
> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann 
> 
> This looks reasonable to me as well, in particular as the code only
> supports the two
> ppc44x virtex developer boards and no commercial products.
> 
> It does raise a follow-up question about ppc40x though: is it time to
> retire all of it?

Who knows?

I have in possession nice WD My Book Live, based on this architecture, and I
won't it gone from modern kernel support. OTOH I understand that amount of real
users not too big.

Ah, and I have Amiga board, but that one is being used only for testing, so,
I don't care much.

> The other ppc405 machines appear to have seen even fewer updates after the
> OpenBlockS 600 got added in 2011, so it's possible nobody is using them any 
> more
> with modern kernels.
> 
> I see that OpenWRT removed both ppc40x and ppc44x exactly a year ago after
> they had not been maintained for years.
> 
> However, 44x (in its ppc476 incarnation) is clearly still is used
> through the fsp2 platform,
> and can not be deprecated at least until that is known to have stopped
> getting kernel
> updates.
> 
> Arnd

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 1:12 PM Michal Simek  wrote:
>
> recently we wanted to update xilinx intc driver and we found that function
> which we wanted to remove is still wired by ancient Xilinx PowerPC
> platforms. Here is the thread about it.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/48d3232d-0f1d-42ea-3109-f44bbabfa...@xilinx.com/
>
> I have been talking about it internally and there is no interest in these
> platforms and it is also orphan for quite a long time. None is really
> running/testing these platforms regularly that's why I think it makes sense
> to remove them also with drivers which are specific to this platform.
>
> U-Boot support was removed in 2017 without anybody complain about it
> https://github.com/Xilinx/u-boot-xlnx/commit/98f705c9cefdfdba62c069821bbba10273a0a8ed
>
> Based on current ppc/next.
>
> If anyone has any objection about it, please let me know.

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann 

This looks reasonable to me as well, in particular as the code only
supports the two
ppc44x virtex developer boards and no commercial products.

It does raise a follow-up question about ppc40x though: is it time to
retire all of it?
The other ppc405 machines appear to have seen even fewer updates after the
OpenBlockS 600 got added in 2011, so it's possible nobody is using them any more
with modern kernels.

I see that OpenWRT removed both ppc40x and ppc44x exactly a year ago after
they had not been maintained for years.

However, 44x (in its ppc476 incarnation) is clearly still is used
through the fsp2 platform,
and can not be deprecated at least until that is known to have stopped
getting kernel
updates.

Arnd

[PATCH 0/2] powerpc: Remove support for ppc405/440 Xilinx platforms

[Michal Simek]

Hi,

recently we wanted to update xilinx intc driver and we found that function
which we wanted to remove is still wired by ancient Xilinx PowerPC
platforms. Here is the thread about it.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/48d3232d-0f1d-42ea-3109-f44bbabfa...@xilinx.com/

I have been talking about it internally and there is no interest in these
platforms and it is also orphan for quite a long time. None is really
running/testing these platforms regularly that's why I think it makes sense
to remove them also with drivers which are specific to this platform.

U-Boot support was removed in 2017 without anybody complain about it
https://github.com/Xilinx/u-boot-xlnx/commit/98f705c9cefdfdba62c069821bbba10273a0a8ed

Based on current ppc/next.

If anyone has any objection about it, please let me know.

Thanks,
Michal


Michal Simek (2):
  sound: ac97: Remove sound driver for ancient platform
  powerpc: Remove Xilinx PPC405/PPC440 support

 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/xilinx.txt |  143 --
 Documentation/powerpc/bootwrapper.rst|   28 +-
 MAINTAINERS  |6 -
 arch/powerpc/Kconfig.debug   |2 +-
 arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile   |7 +-
 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/Makefile   |1 -
 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/virtex440-ml507.dts|  406 --
 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/virtex440-ml510.dts|  466 ---
 arch/powerpc/boot/ops.h  |1 -
 arch/powerpc/boot/serial.c   |5 -
 arch/powerpc/boot/uartlite.c |   79 --
 arch/powerpc/boot/virtex.c   |   97 --
 arch/powerpc/boot/virtex405-head.S   |   31 -
 arch/powerpc/boot/wrapper|8 -
 arch/powerpc/configs/40x/virtex_defconfig|   75 -
 arch/powerpc/configs/44x/virtex5_defconfig   |   74 -
 arch/powerpc/configs/ppc40x_defconfig|8 -
 arch/powerpc/configs/ppc44x_defconfig|8 -
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/xilinx_intc.h   |   16 -
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/xilinx_pci.h|   21 -
 arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c   |   39 -
 arch/powerpc/platforms/40x/Kconfig   |   31 -
 arch/powerpc/platforms/40x/Makefile  |1 -
 arch/powerpc/platforms/40x/virtex.c  |   54 -
 arch/powerpc/platforms/44x/Kconfig   |   37 -
 arch/powerpc/platforms/44x/Makefile  |2 -
 arch/powerpc/platforms/44x/virtex.c  |   60 -
 arch/powerpc/platforms/44x/virtex_ml510.c|   30 -
 arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig   |4 -
 arch/powerpc/sysdev/Makefile |2 -
 arch/powerpc/sysdev/xilinx_intc.c|   88 --
 arch/powerpc/sysdev/xilinx_pci.c |  132 --
 arch/powerpc/xmon/ppc-dis.c  |6 -
 arch/powerpc/xmon/ppc-opc.c  |   23 -
 arch/powerpc/xmon/ppc.h  |5 -
 drivers/char/Kconfig |2 +-
 drivers/video/fbdev/Kconfig  |2 +-
 sound/drivers/Kconfig|   12 -
 sound/drivers/Makefile   |2 -
 sound/drivers/ml403-ac97cr.c | 1298 --
 40 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3305 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/virtex440-ml507.dts
 delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/dts/virtex440-ml510.dts
 delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/uartlite.c
 delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/virtex.c
 delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/boot/virtex405-head.S
 delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/configs/40x/virtex_defconfig
 delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/configs/44x/virtex5_defconfig
 delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/include/asm/xilinx_intc.h
 delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/include/asm/xilinx_pci.h
 delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/platforms/40x/virtex.c
 delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/platforms/44x/virtex.c
 delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/platforms/44x/virtex_ml510.c
 delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/sysdev/xilinx_intc.c
 delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/sysdev/xilinx_pci.c
 delete mode 100644 sound/drivers/ml403-ac97cr.c

-- 
2.26.0