Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Deprecation / Removal of old hardware support

From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Deprecation / Removal of old hardware support
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 11:27:06 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180911182706.GB21160@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdU-M7zBbQ-BBu6gF=6X+TnX9y207ADzKJ1i+VanxRFCdQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 07:58:48PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Günter,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 7:27 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:49:25AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 12:02 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:40:59PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > One architecture (unicore32) got saved in the last minute by
> > > > > the maintainer saying that he'd rather keep it in tree, despite not
> > > > > even having a publicly available toolchain with sources.
> > > >
> > > > unicore32 no longer builds with the mainline kernel because the
> > > > (private) toolchain is too old (gcc < 4.6), so it may be time
> > > > to revisit that decision.
> > >
> > > I'm still building mainline with gcc-4.1.2, using:
> > >
> > >     git revert 815f0ddb346c1960 # "include/linux/compiler*.h: make
> > > compiler-*.h mutually exclusive"
> > >     git revert cafa0010cd51fb71 # "Raise the minimum required gcc
> > > version to 4.6"
> > >
> > > leading to one recent bug fix:
> > >
> > >     https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180823212738.18431-1-geert@linux-m68k.org/
> > >
> > > and two code improvements:
> > >
> > >     https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180823212436.17423-1-geert@linux-m68k.org/
> > >     https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180823213027.18856-1-geert@linux-m68k.org/
> >
> > Interesting. How to you manage to not hit the problem reported with
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/8/14/472 ?
> 
> Sorry, I forgot I have also applied Andrew's wibble patch:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180814160208.4f4dd7ca142912f5894ddddd@linux-foundation.org/
> 

Hmm. I don't really want to have to maintain a set of patches on top upstream
and stable kernels to be able to run my tests. I do have a set of configuration
options to apply, but anything beyond that is, in my opinion, out of scope
for (at least my) testing.

Thanks,
Guenter