On 26 October 2026 16:39:21 GMT, Tomas Alvarez Vanoli <[email protected]> wrote: >>On 26 October 2026 16:19:20 GMT, Vincent Jardin <[email protected]> wrote: >>>Hi, >>> >>>> Isn't that a double edged sword? >>>> >>>> I mean, since PowerPC is SO inactive that like nobody will respond, >and >>>> it'll be limbo limbo limbo, just to merge say 24 removals and a >>>> maintainers patch, especially the maintainers patch, that has nothing >>>to do with the removals and that'll get all stuck up with the removals I >>>think unless you have other plans, which is annoyance, because it is "oh >>>so inactive" >>>> >>>> And I also made a additional maintainers patch that IDK where it will >>>go!! >>>> Either to my custodian tree (p,s: maintainers patch isn't merged >yet!!) >>>> >>>> Or to another tree, yeah, odd, hm? >>>> >>>> (Sorry, I had a small vent, :c) >>> >>>I would not drop PPCs so quickly ; there are still many systems running >>>PPCs >>>even if folks are more in "don't touch things that work", I feel it'll >>>change >>>withint the upcoming months because of the scale of CVEs of those old >>>systems >>>and some new regulations in EU. Let's wait/watch, maybe one more year, >>>before dropping. >>> >>>It seems long, but looking backward EU regulations will start to be >>>effective only >>>by end of 2027 and LLM -> explode of new CVEs are just starting... >>>so the mindset of "don't touch, it works", it'll have to change. >> >>Yeah, I removed so many systems because it was 1: EOL, 2: Old, >unmaintained >>rubbish (well, some of them) >> >>But my concern is the one patch that has nothing to do with it. >> >>26/26, the maintainers patch, I already got a tree and stuff, but I >>wouldn't know if like it'll >> >>A: get merged when they merge your fixes >> >>Or >> >>B: Merge when the removals get merged :( >> >>I'd prefer A personally, because of the fact that the patch has nothing >to >>do with it. If that makes sense. >> >>Id personally think a cleanup is more than due for this, I have millads >>more cleanups to do when my maintainers patch gets merged, PowerPC as I >>see it at the moment is in a slight disarray, well, it works, but it >needs >>to be cleaned and organised a bit. >> >>Id say 19+ more patches would be required in order to make this actually >>clean ISH. >> >>Because for 1: power(8,9,10) isn't even implemented yet! What!? >> >>Well, I'm not sure about that being a priority because for 1: it can be >>booted thru LPAR. Which, is odd. (Thanks IBM! :c) >> >>Personally, PowerPC needs a nice dustpan and brush across before it could >>be classed as an actually clean architecture subsystem! >> >>And god forbid the bugs. Somebody with a AI will be having a field day >>covering their ears going "la la la la bugs", because I can see bugs all >>over the place! >> >>But thank god people still use ppc on u-boot, and for anybody reading >this >>using u-boot on their PowerPC as we speak, thank you so much for using >it, >>and me, as a maintainer(tm) and the whole community sends our unreserved >>thanks for your use of it. >> >> >> >>> >>>my 2 cents, >>> Vincent >> >>--- Thanks! > > >Hi all, > >Just a data point from a user: we are using U-Boot on a T1040 (QorIQ / >mpc85xx) in a product, and we intend to keep up with mainline as much as >we can. We'd appreciate PowerPC support staying in tree, and we're happy >to test patches on T1040 hardware and report back. >We run u-boot in 32-bit mode (not sure if it is possible to use 64-bit) >and >linux in 64-bit. >I am in the process of bringing it up to our 2025.07 branch and >potentially >mainlining as much as possible. We have some remnants of it under >`board/keymile/kmcent2`.
Would T1042D4RDB affect you? > >If any of the planned removals or cleanups touch T104x/QorIQ code or >boards, please keep me and [email protected] on Cc. > >Thanks to everyone maintaining this. > >Best regards, >Tomas > --- Thanks!
