Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

Hello Arnd!

> * No objection to removing arch/powerpc/platforms/cell that I
>   had mentioned I plan to do.

Does this affect the capability to run Linux on the PS3?

If yes, it would be great if it could stay as the PS3 is a rather
widely used platform although you certainly won't find any PS3
users on the LKML.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 9:37 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
> Hello Arnd!
>
> > * No objection to removing arch/powerpc/platforms/cell that I
> >   had mentioned I plan to do.
>
> Does this affect the capability to run Linux on the PS3?
>
> If yes, it would be great if it could stay as the PS3 is a rather
> widely used platform although you certainly won't find any PS3
> users on the LKML.

No, as I wrote in the initial email, I'm planning to move the things
(like spufs) that are shared with PS3 into arch/powerpc/platforms/ps3
and remove the parts that are only used on the IBM blades.

        Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Michael Ellerman]

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 9:37 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Arnd!
>>
>> > * No objection to removing arch/powerpc/platforms/cell that I
>> >   had mentioned I plan to do.
>>
>> Does this affect the capability to run Linux on the PS3?
>>
>> If yes, it would be great if it could stay as the PS3 is a rather
>> widely used platform although you certainly won't find any PS3
>> users on the LKML.
>
> No, as I wrote in the initial email, I'm planning to move the things
> (like spufs) that are shared with PS3 into arch/powerpc/platforms/ps3
> and remove the parts that are only used on the IBM blades.

As I said a while back, I'm not convinced that's a good idea.

The only way I have of testing cell is using a QS22, I don't have a PS3
capable of running Linux these days. I worry that if I can't test cell
at all then the PS3 support will bit rot.

I know Geoff tests PS3, but that seems sporadic, I don't think he tests
linux-next every day.

I also don't think the cell blade support is really causing much in the
way of maintenance overhead. The thing that's causing work is spufs, and
that would remain either way.

I'd be happy to drop any QS20/21 code we have, but I'm not convinced
dropping QS22 is a good trade off.

cheers

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:33 AM Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 9:37 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> > <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello Arnd!
> >>
> >> > * No objection to removing arch/powerpc/platforms/cell that I
> >> >   had mentioned I plan to do.
> >>
> >> Does this affect the capability to run Linux on the PS3?
> >>
> >> If yes, it would be great if it could stay as the PS3 is a rather
> >> widely used platform although you certainly won't find any PS3
> >> users on the LKML.
> >
> > No, as I wrote in the initial email, I'm planning to move the things
> > (like spufs) that are shared with PS3 into arch/powerpc/platforms/ps3
> > and remove the parts that are only used on the IBM blades.
>
> As I said a while back, I'm not convinced that's a good idea.
>
> The only way I have of testing cell is using a QS22, I don't have a PS3
> capable of running Linux these days. I worry that if I can't test cell
> at all then the PS3 support will bit rot.

Fair enough. I must have missed your previous reply and expected
that your QS22 had stopped being operational years ago and that
there were already zero machines getting kernel updates.

Are you aware of any other users?

> I know Geoff tests PS3, but that seems sporadic, I don't think he tests
> linux-next every day.
>
> I also don't think the cell blade support is really causing much in the
> way of maintenance overhead. The thing that's causing work is spufs, and
> that would remain either way.
>
> I'd be happy to drop any QS20/21 code we have, but I'm not convinced
> dropping QS22 is a good trade off.

Right, I agree that there is little to gain from dropping QS20/21, the
only files that I see this would impact are

arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spider-pci.c
arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spider-pic.c
drivers/net/ethernet/toshiba/spider_net*

Dropping all of native (as opposed to PS3 hypervisor based) Cell support
would be a useful cleanup I think, but not as long as you still use it.

        Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

Hi Arnd!

On 1/17/21 11:56 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> I'd be happy to drop any QS20/21 code we have, but I'm not convinced
>> dropping QS22 is a good trade off.
> 
> Right, I agree that there is little to gain from dropping QS20/21, the
> only files that I see this would impact are
> 
> arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spider-pci.c
> arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spider-pic.c
> drivers/net/ethernet/toshiba/spider_net*
> 
> Dropping all of native (as opposed to PS3 hypervisor based) Cell support
> would be a useful cleanup I think, but not as long as you still use it.

I'm very glad to hear that. Cell is such a unique and interesting architecture
that it would be a shame if it was no longer supported by the Linux kernel.

I would really like to try Debian on these machines one day.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Michael Ellerman]

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:33 AM Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
>> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> writes:
>> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 9:37 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
>> > <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hello Arnd!
>> >>
>> >> > * No objection to removing arch/powerpc/platforms/cell that I
>> >> >   had mentioned I plan to do.
>> >>
>> >> Does this affect the capability to run Linux on the PS3?
>> >>
>> >> If yes, it would be great if it could stay as the PS3 is a rather
>> >> widely used platform although you certainly won't find any PS3
>> >> users on the LKML.
>> >
>> > No, as I wrote in the initial email, I'm planning to move the things
>> > (like spufs) that are shared with PS3 into arch/powerpc/platforms/ps3
>> > and remove the parts that are only used on the IBM blades.
>>
>> As I said a while back, I'm not convinced that's a good idea.
>>
>> The only way I have of testing cell is using a QS22, I don't have a PS3
>> capable of running Linux these days. I worry that if I can't test cell
>> at all then the PS3 support will bit rot.
>
> Fair enough. I must have missed your previous reply and expected
> that your QS22 had stopped being operational years ago and that
> there were already zero machines getting kernel updates.

No worries, we all get lots of email :)

So far that QS22 is still going OK with no signs of imminent failure.

> Are you aware of any other users?

No.

I can think of one spufs patch ~year ago that came from someone I assume
is a real Cell user, but otherwise it's pretty much only Geoff that ever
sends Cell/PS3 patches.

>> I know Geoff tests PS3, but that seems sporadic, I don't think he tests
>> linux-next every day.
>>
>> I also don't think the cell blade support is really causing much in the
>> way of maintenance overhead. The thing that's causing work is spufs, and
>> that would remain either way.
>>
>> I'd be happy to drop any QS20/21 code we have, but I'm not convinced
>> dropping QS22 is a good trade off.
>
> Right, I agree that there is little to gain from dropping QS20/21, the
> only files that I see this would impact are
>
> arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spider-pci.c
> arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spider-pic.c
> drivers/net/ethernet/toshiba/spider_net*
>
> Dropping all of native (as opposed to PS3 hypervisor based) Cell support
> would be a useful cleanup I think, but not as long as you still use it.

I would still be happy to drop QS20/21, it's still a few thousand lines
of code, and hasn't been tested for years.

I think it might also let us clean up some of our IO_WORKAROUNDS stuff.

But I agree it's much less of an obvious maintenance win than dropping
all of the native code.

cheers

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:58 PM Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> writes:
> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:33 AM Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:

> > Right, I agree that there is little to gain from dropping QS20/21, the
> > only files that I see this would impact are
> >
> > arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spider-pci.c
> > arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spider-pic.c
> > drivers/net/ethernet/toshiba/spider_net*
> >
> > Dropping all of native (as opposed to PS3 hypervisor based) Cell support
> > would be a useful cleanup I think, but not as long as you still use it.
>
> I would still be happy to drop QS20/21, it's still a few thousand lines
> of code, and hasn't been tested for years.
>
> I think it might also let us clean up some of our IO_WORKAROUNDS stuff.
>
> But I agree it's much less of an obvious maintenance win than dropping
> all of the native code.

Good point about the IO_WORKAROUNDS! This is something that may
come up again if we manage to get arch/arm/mach-ixp4xx converted
to use a common kernel. This one also needs indirect MMIO, so at that
point, we could steal the code from powerpc and put it into common
code, but then drop the Cell version.

       Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Wei Xu]

Hi Arnd,

On 2021/1/15 20:04, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 12:09 PM Leizhen (ThunderTown)
> <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> wrote:
>> On 2021/1/15 17:26, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 8:08 AM Wei Xu <xuwei5@hisilicon.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2021/1/14 0:14, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:55 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>> * mmp -- added in 2009, DT support is active, but board files might go
>>>>> * cns3xxx -- added in 2010, last fixed in 2019, probably no users left
>>>>> * hisi (hip01/hip05) -- servers added in 2013, replaced with arm64 in 2016
>>>>
>>>> I think it is OK to drop the support of the hip01(arm32) and hip05(arm64).
>>>> Could you also help to drop the support of the hip04(arm32) which I think nobody use as well?
>>>
>>> Thank you for your reply! I actually meant to write hip04 instead of hip05,
>>> so I was only asking about the two 32-bit targets. I would expect that
>>> hip05 still has a few users, but wouldn't mind removing that as well if you
>>> are sure there are none.
>>>
>>> Since Zhen Lei is starting to upstream Kunpeng506 and Kunpeng509
>>> support, can you clarify how much reuse of IP blocks there is between
>>> hip04 and those? In particular, hip04 has custom code for (at least)
>>> platmcpm, clk, irqchip, ethernet, and hw_rng, probably more as those
>>> were only the ones I see on a quick grep.
>>>
>>> If we remove hip04, should we remove all these drivers right away,
>>> or keep some of them around?
>>
>> I think the drivers should be kept.
> 
> Ok, will do.
> 
>> Currently, at least hip04_eth.c and irq-hip04.c are used. These drivers
>> were originally written for Hip04, but the drivers used by other boards
>> maybe similar to them. Therefore, these drivers are extended without
>> adding new drivers.
> 
> Right, so the other chips just use compatible="hisilicon,hip04-intc"
> etc. in their device trees? Is there a public copy of the dts files
> somewhere that I can use for cross-referencing? Sorry if I'm
> messing up the timeline for your upstreaming plans.
> 
> It might actually be easier to leave hip01 and hip04 in the
> tree for the moment until you have upstreamed the other SoC
> support, and then we clean up by removing the unused bits
> afterwards. I'll leave it to you both to tell me which way is easier
> for you.

I have aligned with Leizhen and as you suggested it is better to keep them 
for the moment.
Thanks!

Best Regards,
Wei

> 
>       Arnd
> .
> 

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Wei Xu]

Hi Arnd,

On 2021/1/15 20:04, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 12:09 PM Leizhen (ThunderTown)
> <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> wrote:
>> On 2021/1/15 17:26, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 8:08 AM Wei Xu <xuwei5@hisilicon.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2021/1/14 0:14, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:55 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>> * mmp -- added in 2009, DT support is active, but board files might go
>>>>> * cns3xxx -- added in 2010, last fixed in 2019, probably no users left
>>>>> * hisi (hip01/hip05) -- servers added in 2013, replaced with arm64 in 2016
>>>>
>>>> I think it is OK to drop the support of the hip01(arm32) and hip05(arm64).
>>>> Could you also help to drop the support of the hip04(arm32) which I think nobody use as well?
>>>
>>> Thank you for your reply! I actually meant to write hip04 instead of hip05,
>>> so I was only asking about the two 32-bit targets. I would expect that
>>> hip05 still has a few users, but wouldn't mind removing that as well if you
>>> are sure there are none.
>>>
>>> Since Zhen Lei is starting to upstream Kunpeng506 and Kunpeng509
>>> support, can you clarify how much reuse of IP blocks there is between
>>> hip04 and those? In particular, hip04 has custom code for (at least)
>>> platmcpm, clk, irqchip, ethernet, and hw_rng, probably more as those
>>> were only the ones I see on a quick grep.
>>>
>>> If we remove hip04, should we remove all these drivers right away,
>>> or keep some of them around?
>>
>> I think the drivers should be kept.
> 
> Ok, will do.
> 
>> Currently, at least hip04_eth.c and irq-hip04.c are used. These drivers
>> were originally written for Hip04, but the drivers used by other boards
>> maybe similar to them. Therefore, these drivers are extended without
>> adding new drivers.
> 
> Right, so the other chips just use compatible="hisilicon,hip04-intc"
> etc. in their device trees? Is there a public copy of the dts files
> somewhere that I can use for cross-referencing? Sorry if I'm
> messing up the timeline for your upstreaming plans.
> 
> It might actually be easier to leave hip01 and hip04 in the
> tree for the moment until you have upstreamed the other SoC
> support, and then we clean up by removing the unused bits
> afterwards. I'll leave it to you both to tell me which way is easier
> for you.

I have aligned with Leizhen and as you suggested it is better to keep them 
for the moment.
Thanks!

Best Regards,
Wei

> 
>       Arnd
> .
> 

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 12:09 PM Leizhen (ThunderTown)
<thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> wrote:
> On 2021/1/15 17:26, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 8:08 AM Wei Xu <xuwei5@hisilicon.com> wrote:
> >> On 2021/1/14 0:14, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:55 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>> * mmp -- added in 2009, DT support is active, but board files might go
> >>> * cns3xxx -- added in 2010, last fixed in 2019, probably no users left
> >>> * hisi (hip01/hip05) -- servers added in 2013, replaced with arm64 in 2016
> >>
> >> I think it is OK to drop the support of the hip01(arm32) and hip05(arm64).
> >> Could you also help to drop the support of the hip04(arm32) which I think nobody use as well?
> >
> > Thank you for your reply! I actually meant to write hip04 instead of hip05,
> > so I was only asking about the two 32-bit targets. I would expect that
> > hip05 still has a few users, but wouldn't mind removing that as well if you
> > are sure there are none.
> >
> > Since Zhen Lei is starting to upstream Kunpeng506 and Kunpeng509
> > support, can you clarify how much reuse of IP blocks there is between
> > hip04 and those? In particular, hip04 has custom code for (at least)
> > platmcpm, clk, irqchip, ethernet, and hw_rng, probably more as those
> > were only the ones I see on a quick grep.
> >
> > If we remove hip04, should we remove all these drivers right away,
> > or keep some of them around?
>
> I think the drivers should be kept.

Ok, will do.

> Currently, at least hip04_eth.c and irq-hip04.c are used. These drivers
> were originally written for Hip04, but the drivers used by other boards
> maybe similar to them. Therefore, these drivers are extended without
> adding new drivers.

Right, so the other chips just use compatible="hisilicon,hip04-intc"
etc. in their device trees? Is there a public copy of the dts files
somewhere that I can use for cross-referencing? Sorry if I'm
messing up the timeline for your upstreaming plans.

It might actually be easier to leave hip01 and hip04 in the
tree for the moment until you have upstreamed the other SoC
support, and then we clean up by removing the unused bits
afterwards. I'll leave it to you both to tell me which way is easier
for you.

      Arnd

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 12:09 PM Leizhen (ThunderTown)
<thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> wrote:
> On 2021/1/15 17:26, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 8:08 AM Wei Xu <xuwei5@hisilicon.com> wrote:
> >> On 2021/1/14 0:14, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:55 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>> * mmp -- added in 2009, DT support is active, but board files might go
> >>> * cns3xxx -- added in 2010, last fixed in 2019, probably no users left
> >>> * hisi (hip01/hip05) -- servers added in 2013, replaced with arm64 in 2016
> >>
> >> I think it is OK to drop the support of the hip01(arm32) and hip05(arm64).
> >> Could you also help to drop the support of the hip04(arm32) which I think nobody use as well?
> >
> > Thank you for your reply! I actually meant to write hip04 instead of hip05,
> > so I was only asking about the two 32-bit targets. I would expect that
> > hip05 still has a few users, but wouldn't mind removing that as well if you
> > are sure there are none.
> >
> > Since Zhen Lei is starting to upstream Kunpeng506 and Kunpeng509
> > support, can you clarify how much reuse of IP blocks there is between
> > hip04 and those? In particular, hip04 has custom code for (at least)
> > platmcpm, clk, irqchip, ethernet, and hw_rng, probably more as those
> > were only the ones I see on a quick grep.
> >
> > If we remove hip04, should we remove all these drivers right away,
> > or keep some of them around?
>
> I think the drivers should be kept.

Ok, will do.

> Currently, at least hip04_eth.c and irq-hip04.c are used. These drivers
> were originally written for Hip04, but the drivers used by other boards
> maybe similar to them. Therefore, these drivers are extended without
> adding new drivers.

Right, so the other chips just use compatible="hisilicon,hip04-intc"
etc. in their device trees? Is there a public copy of the dts files
somewhere that I can use for cross-referencing? Sorry if I'm
messing up the timeline for your upstreaming plans.

It might actually be easier to leave hip01 and hip04 in the
tree for the moment until you have upstreamed the other SoC
support, and then we clean up by removing the unused bits
afterwards. I'll leave it to you both to tell me which way is easier
for you.

      Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2021/1/15 17:26, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 8:08 AM Wei Xu <xuwei5@hisilicon.com> wrote:
>> On 2021/1/14 0:14, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:55 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> * mmp -- added in 2009, DT support is active, but board files might go
>>> * cns3xxx -- added in 2010, last fixed in 2019, probably no users left
>>> * hisi (hip01/hip05) -- servers added in 2013, replaced with arm64 in 2016
>>
>> I think it is OK to drop the support of the hip01(arm32) and hip05(arm64).
>> Could you also help to drop the support of the hip04(arm32) which I think nobody use as well?
> 
> Thank you for your reply! I actually meant to write hip04 instead of hip05,
> so I was only asking about the two 32-bit targets. I would expect that
> hip05 still has a few users, but wouldn't mind removing that as well if you
> are sure there are none.
> 
> Since Zhen Lei is starting to upstream Kunpeng506 and Kunpeng509
> support, can you clarify how much reuse of IP blocks there is between
> hip04 and those? In particular, hip04 has custom code for (at least)
> platmcpm, clk, irqchip, ethernet, and hw_rng, probably more as those
> were only the ones I see on a quick grep.
> 
> If we remove hip04, should we remove all these drivers right away,
> or keep some of them around?

I think the drivers should be kept. Currently, at least hip04_eth.c and
irq-hip04.c are used. These drivers were originally written for Hip04, but
the drivers used by other boards maybe similar to them. Therefore, these
drivers are extended without adding new drivers.

> 
>       Arnd
> 
> .
> 

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2021/1/15 17:26, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 8:08 AM Wei Xu <xuwei5@hisilicon.com> wrote:
>> On 2021/1/14 0:14, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:55 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> * mmp -- added in 2009, DT support is active, but board files might go
>>> * cns3xxx -- added in 2010, last fixed in 2019, probably no users left
>>> * hisi (hip01/hip05) -- servers added in 2013, replaced with arm64 in 2016
>>
>> I think it is OK to drop the support of the hip01(arm32) and hip05(arm64).
>> Could you also help to drop the support of the hip04(arm32) which I think nobody use as well?
> 
> Thank you for your reply! I actually meant to write hip04 instead of hip05,
> so I was only asking about the two 32-bit targets. I would expect that
> hip05 still has a few users, but wouldn't mind removing that as well if you
> are sure there are none.
> 
> Since Zhen Lei is starting to upstream Kunpeng506 and Kunpeng509
> support, can you clarify how much reuse of IP blocks there is between
> hip04 and those? In particular, hip04 has custom code for (at least)
> platmcpm, clk, irqchip, ethernet, and hw_rng, probably more as those
> were only the ones I see on a quick grep.
> 
> If we remove hip04, should we remove all these drivers right away,
> or keep some of them around?

I think the drivers should be kept. Currently, at least hip04_eth.c and
irq-hip04.c are used. These drivers were originally written for Hip04, but
the drivers used by other boards maybe similar to them. Therefore, these
drivers are extended without adding new drivers.

> 
>       Arnd
> 
> .
> 


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 8:08 AM Wei Xu <xuwei5@hisilicon.com> wrote:
> On 2021/1/14 0:14, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:55 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
> > * mmp -- added in 2009, DT support is active, but board files might go
> > * cns3xxx -- added in 2010, last fixed in 2019, probably no users left
> > * hisi (hip01/hip05) -- servers added in 2013, replaced with arm64 in 2016
>
> I think it is OK to drop the support of the hip01(arm32) and hip05(arm64).
> Could you also help to drop the support of the hip04(arm32) which I think nobody use as well?

Thank you for your reply! I actually meant to write hip04 instead of hip05,
so I was only asking about the two 32-bit targets. I would expect that
hip05 still has a few users, but wouldn't mind removing that as well if you
are sure there are none.

Since Zhen Lei is starting to upstream Kunpeng506 and Kunpeng509
support, can you clarify how much reuse of IP blocks there is between
hip04 and those? In particular, hip04 has custom code for (at least)
platmcpm, clk, irqchip, ethernet, and hw_rng, probably more as those
were only the ones I see on a quick grep.

If we remove hip04, should we remove all these drivers right away,
or keep some of them around?

      Arnd

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 8:08 AM Wei Xu <xuwei5@hisilicon.com> wrote:
> On 2021/1/14 0:14, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:55 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
> > * mmp -- added in 2009, DT support is active, but board files might go
> > * cns3xxx -- added in 2010, last fixed in 2019, probably no users left
> > * hisi (hip01/hip05) -- servers added in 2013, replaced with arm64 in 2016
>
> I think it is OK to drop the support of the hip01(arm32) and hip05(arm64).
> Could you also help to drop the support of the hip04(arm32) which I think nobody use as well?

Thank you for your reply! I actually meant to write hip04 instead of hip05,
so I was only asking about the two 32-bit targets. I would expect that
hip05 still has a few users, but wouldn't mind removing that as well if you
are sure there are none.

Since Zhen Lei is starting to upstream Kunpeng506 and Kunpeng509
support, can you clarify how much reuse of IP blocks there is between
hip04 and those? In particular, hip04 has custom code for (at least)
platmcpm, clk, irqchip, ethernet, and hw_rng, probably more as those
were only the ones I see on a quick grep.

If we remove hip04, should we remove all these drivers right away,
or keep some of them around?

      Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Wei Xu]

Hi Arnd,

On 2021/1/14 0:14, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:55 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> Just to catch up on the replies I received on my initial email, here
> is the updated status of all the Arm platforms I listed earlier, thanks
> for everyone that contributed information on these platforms!
> 
> These platforms were listed as likely unused and are now going to
> be kept around, as we wait for work on them to resume:
> 
> * axxia -- added in 2014, no notable changes after 2015
>   (Alexander Sverdlin has patches and volunteered as a maintainer)
> * bcm/kona -- added in 2013, no notable changes after 2014
>   (Found activity in PostmarketOS, waiting for usptreaming)
> * digicolor -- added in 2014, no notable changes after 2015
>   (Baruch still uses it, no changes needed)
> * dove -- added in 2009, obsoleted by mach-mvebu in 2015
>   (Russell still has patches for cubox, we might remove the other
>    boards that are converted to DT though)
> * nspire -- added in 2013, no notable changes after 2015
>   (Fabian and Daniel confirmed this is alive and well, more
>    hardware support is planned)
> * spear -- added in 2010, no notable changes since 2015
>   (My mistake in reading the changelog, should have been
>   on the second list. The platform is still active, and Mattias
>   Wallin plans to send more hardware support and cleanup
>   patches)
> 
> These platforms are confirmed to be dead upstream, and are going to
> be removed:
> 
> * efm32 -- added in 2011, first Cortex-M, no notable changes after 2013
> * picoxcell -- added in 2011, already queued for removal
> * prima2 -- added in 20111, no notable changes since 2015
> * tango -- added in 2015, sporadic changes until 2017, but abandoned
> * u300 -- added in 2009, no notable changes since 2013
> * zx --added in 2015 for both 32, 2017 for 64 bit, no notable changes
> 
> No reply yet, still planning for  removal. Oleksij and Tony, please
> confirm this is ok or let us know if we should keep them:
> 
> * asm9260 -- added in 2014, no notable changes after 2015
> * vt8500 -- added in 2010, no notable changes since 2014
> 
> These were on the original list of platforms that are likely still
> maintained and used despite their age, and I received a
> confirmation that this is true (some of them off-list)
> 
> * clps711x -- prehistoric, converted to multiplatform+DT in 2016
> * ep93xx -- added in 2006, LinusW still working on it, any users left?
> * footbridge -- added in prehistory, stable since ~2013, rmk and LinusW have one
> * gemini -- added in 2009, LinusW still working on it
> * highbank -- added in 2011, no changes after 2015, but Andre still uses it
> * iop32x -- added in 2006, no notable changes other than my cleanup, still used
> * ixp4xx -- prehistoric, but LinusW and I are still working on it
> * lpc32xx -- added in 2010, multiplatform 2019, hardware is EOL
> * nomadik -- added in 2009, LinusW keeps fixing it, probably no other users
> * orion5x -- DT support still active, board files support to get reviewed
>      for removal and conversion to DT individually
> * oxnas -- added in 2016, but already old then, few changes later
> * pxa -- prehistoric, but a few boards may still have users
> * rpc -- prehistoric, but I think Russell still uses his machine
> * sa1100 -- prehistoric, but rmk and LinusW sporadically working in it
> 
> For these I received no reply yet. Again, these will stay for the moment
> unless I get a reply, but if anyone has more information, please reply
> here to document the status (adding a few more people to Cc):
> 
> * mmp -- added in 2009, DT support is active, but board files might go
> * cns3xxx -- added in 2010, last fixed in 2019, probably no users left
> * hisi (hip01/hip05) -- servers added in 2013, replaced with arm64 in 2016

I think it is OK to drop the support of the hip01(arm32) and hip05(arm64).
Could you also help to drop the support of the hip04(arm32) which I think nobody use as well?
Thanks!

Best Regards,
Wei

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Wei Xu]

Hi Arnd,

On 2021/1/14 0:14, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:55 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> Just to catch up on the replies I received on my initial email, here
> is the updated status of all the Arm platforms I listed earlier, thanks
> for everyone that contributed information on these platforms!
> 
> These platforms were listed as likely unused and are now going to
> be kept around, as we wait for work on them to resume:
> 
> * axxia -- added in 2014, no notable changes after 2015
>   (Alexander Sverdlin has patches and volunteered as a maintainer)
> * bcm/kona -- added in 2013, no notable changes after 2014
>   (Found activity in PostmarketOS, waiting for usptreaming)
> * digicolor -- added in 2014, no notable changes after 2015
>   (Baruch still uses it, no changes needed)
> * dove -- added in 2009, obsoleted by mach-mvebu in 2015
>   (Russell still has patches for cubox, we might remove the other
>    boards that are converted to DT though)
> * nspire -- added in 2013, no notable changes after 2015
>   (Fabian and Daniel confirmed this is alive and well, more
>    hardware support is planned)
> * spear -- added in 2010, no notable changes since 2015
>   (My mistake in reading the changelog, should have been
>   on the second list. The platform is still active, and Mattias
>   Wallin plans to send more hardware support and cleanup
>   patches)
> 
> These platforms are confirmed to be dead upstream, and are going to
> be removed:
> 
> * efm32 -- added in 2011, first Cortex-M, no notable changes after 2013
> * picoxcell -- added in 2011, already queued for removal
> * prima2 -- added in 20111, no notable changes since 2015
> * tango -- added in 2015, sporadic changes until 2017, but abandoned
> * u300 -- added in 2009, no notable changes since 2013
> * zx --added in 2015 for both 32, 2017 for 64 bit, no notable changes
> 
> No reply yet, still planning for  removal. Oleksij and Tony, please
> confirm this is ok or let us know if we should keep them:
> 
> * asm9260 -- added in 2014, no notable changes after 2015
> * vt8500 -- added in 2010, no notable changes since 2014
> 
> These were on the original list of platforms that are likely still
> maintained and used despite their age, and I received a
> confirmation that this is true (some of them off-list)
> 
> * clps711x -- prehistoric, converted to multiplatform+DT in 2016
> * ep93xx -- added in 2006, LinusW still working on it, any users left?
> * footbridge -- added in prehistory, stable since ~2013, rmk and LinusW have one
> * gemini -- added in 2009, LinusW still working on it
> * highbank -- added in 2011, no changes after 2015, but Andre still uses it
> * iop32x -- added in 2006, no notable changes other than my cleanup, still used
> * ixp4xx -- prehistoric, but LinusW and I are still working on it
> * lpc32xx -- added in 2010, multiplatform 2019, hardware is EOL
> * nomadik -- added in 2009, LinusW keeps fixing it, probably no other users
> * orion5x -- DT support still active, board files support to get reviewed
>      for removal and conversion to DT individually
> * oxnas -- added in 2016, but already old then, few changes later
> * pxa -- prehistoric, but a few boards may still have users
> * rpc -- prehistoric, but I think Russell still uses his machine
> * sa1100 -- prehistoric, but rmk and LinusW sporadically working in it
> 
> For these I received no reply yet. Again, these will stay for the moment
> unless I get a reply, but if anyone has more information, please reply
> here to document the status (adding a few more people to Cc):
> 
> * mmp -- added in 2009, DT support is active, but board files might go
> * cns3xxx -- added in 2010, last fixed in 2019, probably no users left
> * hisi (hip01/hip05) -- servers added in 2013, replaced with arm64 in 2016

I think it is OK to drop the support of the hip01(arm32) and hip05(arm64).
Could you also help to drop the support of the hip04(arm32) which I think nobody use as well?
Thanks!

Best Regards,
Wei

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 8:00 PM Krzysztof Hałasa <khalasa@piap.pl> wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> writes:
>
> > For these I received no reply yet. Again, these will stay for the moment
> > unless I get a reply, but if anyone has more information, please reply
> > here to document the status (adding a few more people to Cc):
> >
> > * cns3xxx -- added in 2010, last fixed in 2019, probably no users left
>
> The following is what I sent to you a week ago. I don't say whether
> CNS3xxx support should stay or not, of course.
>
> Subject: Re: cns3xxx PCIe domain support
>
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> writes:
>
> > For the cns3xxx case, I wonder if anyone actually cares. If
> > there are still users, the treewide change would make it trivial
> > to set it up right, while backporting would be harder. I noticed
> > that openwrt removed cns3xxx support in August with the
> > explanation that the platform is not used much anymore,
> > and I suspect that any users outside of openwrt stopped updating
> > their kernels long ago.
>
> I'm still using CNS3xxx-based Gateworks' boards (Laguna), with some
> custom patch set, but the last kernels are over 2 years old. I have some
> plan to update, but the probability it will happen very soon is rather
> low. I guess I will test and, if needed, fix it when the time comes.
>
> I'm not using them with OpenWrt, though.
> They are basically a platform for (the old, parallel, not express)
> mini-PCI cards and similar stuff. Nothing connected to the Internet etc.

Hi Krzysztof,

Thanks for your reply. I think I misremembered it from when you
originally said this in the other thread and thought you meant
you were unlikely to ever do it, not just for doing it soon.

No need to rush things then by removing it prematurely then, but it
might help if you could point to a git tree with your last working patches
in case someone else has a Laguna and wants to update it to a more
recent kernel before you do.

         Arnd

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 8:00 PM Krzysztof Hałasa <khalasa@piap.pl> wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> writes:
>
> > For these I received no reply yet. Again, these will stay for the moment
> > unless I get a reply, but if anyone has more information, please reply
> > here to document the status (adding a few more people to Cc):
> >
> > * cns3xxx -- added in 2010, last fixed in 2019, probably no users left
>
> The following is what I sent to you a week ago. I don't say whether
> CNS3xxx support should stay or not, of course.
>
> Subject: Re: cns3xxx PCIe domain support
>
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> writes:
>
> > For the cns3xxx case, I wonder if anyone actually cares. If
> > there are still users, the treewide change would make it trivial
> > to set it up right, while backporting would be harder. I noticed
> > that openwrt removed cns3xxx support in August with the
> > explanation that the platform is not used much anymore,
> > and I suspect that any users outside of openwrt stopped updating
> > their kernels long ago.
>
> I'm still using CNS3xxx-based Gateworks' boards (Laguna), with some
> custom patch set, but the last kernels are over 2 years old. I have some
> plan to update, but the probability it will happen very soon is rather
> low. I guess I will test and, if needed, fix it when the time comes.
>
> I'm not using them with OpenWrt, though.
> They are basically a platform for (the old, parallel, not express)
> mini-PCI cards and similar stuff. Nothing connected to the Internet etc.

Hi Krzysztof,

Thanks for your reply. I think I misremembered it from when you
originally said this in the other thread and thought you meant
you were unlikely to ever do it, not just for doing it soon.

No need to rush things then by removing it prematurely then, but it
might help if you could point to a git tree with your last working patches
in case someone else has a Laguna and wants to update it to a more
recent kernel before you do.

         Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Krzysztof Hałasa]

Arnd,

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> writes:

> For these I received no reply yet. Again, these will stay for the moment
> unless I get a reply, but if anyone has more information, please reply
> here to document the status (adding a few more people to Cc):
>
> * cns3xxx -- added in 2010, last fixed in 2019, probably no users left

The following is what I sent to you a week ago. I don't say whether
CNS3xxx support should stay or not, of course.

Subject: Re: cns3xxx PCIe domain support

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> writes:

> For the cns3xxx case, I wonder if anyone actually cares. If
> there are still users, the treewide change would make it trivial
> to set it up right, while backporting would be harder. I noticed
> that openwrt removed cns3xxx support in August with the
> explanation that the platform is not used much anymore,
> and I suspect that any users outside of openwrt stopped updating
> their kernels long ago.

I'm still using CNS3xxx-based Gateworks' boards (Laguna), with some
custom patch set, but the last kernels are over 2 years old. I have some
plan to update, but the probability it will happen very soon is rather
low. I guess I will test and, if needed, fix it when the time comes.

I'm not using them with OpenWrt, though.
They are basically a platform for (the old, parallel, not express)
mini-PCI cards and similar stuff. Nothing connected to the Internet etc.

-- 
Krzysztof Halasa

Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz
Przemysłowy Instytut Automatyki i Pomiarów PIAP
Al. Jerozolimskie 202, 02-486 Warszawa

Re: [v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Krzysztof Hałasa]

Arnd,

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> writes:

> For these I received no reply yet. Again, these will stay for the moment
> unless I get a reply, but if anyone has more information, please reply
> here to document the status (adding a few more people to Cc):
>
> * cns3xxx -- added in 2010, last fixed in 2019, probably no users left

The following is what I sent to you a week ago. I don't say whether
CNS3xxx support should stay or not, of course.

Subject: Re: cns3xxx PCIe domain support

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> writes:

> For the cns3xxx case, I wonder if anyone actually cares. If
> there are still users, the treewide change would make it trivial
> to set it up right, while backporting would be harder. I noticed
> that openwrt removed cns3xxx support in August with the
> explanation that the platform is not used much anymore,
> and I suspect that any users outside of openwrt stopped updating
> their kernels long ago.

I'm still using CNS3xxx-based Gateworks' boards (Laguna), with some
custom patch set, but the last kernels are over 2 years old. I have some
plan to update, but the probability it will happen very soon is rather
low. I guess I will test and, if needed, fix it when the time comes.

I'm not using them with OpenWrt, though.
They are basically a platform for (the old, parallel, not express)
mini-PCI cards and similar stuff. Nothing connected to the Internet etc.

-- 
Krzysztof Halasa

Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz
Przemysłowy Instytut Automatyki i Pomiarów PIAP
Al. Jerozolimskie 202, 02-486 Warszawa

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[v2] Old platforms: bring out your dead

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:55 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:

Just to catch up on the replies I received on my initial email, here
is the updated status of all the Arm platforms I listed earlier, thanks
for everyone that contributed information on these platforms!

These platforms were listed as likely unused and are now going to
be kept around, as we wait for work on them to resume:

* axxia -- added in 2014, no notable changes after 2015
  (Alexander Sverdlin has patches and volunteered as a maintainer)
* bcm/kona -- added in 2013, no notable changes after 2014
  (Found activity in PostmarketOS, waiting for usptreaming)
* digicolor -- added in 2014, no notable changes after 2015
  (Baruch still uses it, no changes needed)
* dove -- added in 2009, obsoleted by mach-mvebu in 2015
  (Russell still has patches for cubox, we might remove the other
   boards that are converted to DT though)
* nspire -- added in 2013, no notable changes after 2015
  (Fabian and Daniel confirmed this is alive and well, more
   hardware support is planned)
* spear -- added in 2010, no notable changes since 2015
  (My mistake in reading the changelog, should have been
  on the second list. The platform is still active, and Mattias
  Wallin plans to send more hardware support and cleanup
  patches)

These platforms are confirmed to be dead upstream, and are going to
be removed:

* efm32 -- added in 2011, first Cortex-M, no notable changes after 2013
* picoxcell -- added in 2011, already queued for removal
* prima2 -- added in 20111, no notable changes since 2015
* tango -- added in 2015, sporadic changes until 2017, but abandoned
* u300 -- added in 2009, no notable changes since 2013
* zx --added in 2015 for both 32, 2017 for 64 bit, no notable changes

No reply yet, still planning for  removal. Oleksij and Tony, please
confirm this is ok or let us know if we should keep them:

* asm9260 -- added in 2014, no notable changes after 2015
* vt8500 -- added in 2010, no notable changes since 2014

These were on the original list of platforms that are likely still
maintained and used despite their age, and I received a
confirmation that this is true (some of them off-list)

* clps711x -- prehistoric, converted to multiplatform+DT in 2016
* ep93xx -- added in 2006, LinusW still working on it, any users left?
* footbridge -- added in prehistory, stable since ~2013, rmk and LinusW have one
* gemini -- added in 2009, LinusW still working on it
* highbank -- added in 2011, no changes after 2015, but Andre still uses it
* iop32x -- added in 2006, no notable changes other than my cleanup, still used
* ixp4xx -- prehistoric, but LinusW and I are still working on it
* lpc32xx -- added in 2010, multiplatform 2019, hardware is EOL
* nomadik -- added in 2009, LinusW keeps fixing it, probably no other users
* orion5x -- DT support still active, board files support to get reviewed
     for removal and conversion to DT individually
* oxnas -- added in 2016, but already old then, few changes later
* pxa -- prehistoric, but a few boards may still have users
* rpc -- prehistoric, but I think Russell still uses his machine
* sa1100 -- prehistoric, but rmk and LinusW sporadically working in it

For these I received no reply yet. Again, these will stay for the moment
unless I get a reply, but if anyone has more information, please reply
here to document the status (adding a few more people to Cc):

* mmp -- added in 2009, DT support is active, but board files might go
* cns3xxx -- added in 2010, last fixed in 2019, probably no users left
* hisi (hip01/hip05) -- servers added in 2013, replaced with arm64 in 2016
* lpc18xx -- added in 2015, new dts in 2018, but few other changes
* moxart -- added in 2013, last Tested-by in 2017
* mv78xx0 -- added in 2008, mostly stale but still users
  (https://github.com/1000001101000/Debian_on_Buffalo)

For the non-Arm platforms I listed, little has changed:

* Thomas Bogendoerfer confirms that he all the MIPS platforms and
  the R3000 CPU are still in active use
* Mark Salter steps down as the maintainer for C6x and the architecture
  will be removed
* No objection to removing arch/powerpc/platforms/cell that I
  had mentioned I plan to do.
* For the other architectures, a couple of users replied, but no
  architecture maintainer added any information, so I won't take
  any action.

         Arnd