[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Removing architectures without upstream gcc support
Arnd Bergmann <> writes:

> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Florian Fainelli <> wrote:
>> On 02/22/2018 07:45 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> Add blackfin to that list, there have been no responses from the
>> maintainers last time I posted patches to remove DSA header files, so we
>> had to go these through the networking tree. Have not see a Blackfin
>> pull request since forever, Aaron himself seems to agree this should be
>> removed:
> Peter Zijlstra also mentioned that one on IRC, I didn't have it on my radar
> before. Like Tile, it has only recently been marked as Orphaned in MAINTAINERS,
> so I'd be inclined to wait a little while to give possible users a
> chance to step
> up as new maintainers.
> My plan for v4.17 is now:
> - remove score, unicore and metag due to lack of toolchain
> or interest from the maintainers.
> - keep hexagon, and try to build an llvm/clang toolchain
> - remove frv and m32r due to being abandoned for several years
> - mark tile and blackfin for pending removal later this year unless
> a new maintainer steps up
> - mark mn10300 for pending removal unless it gets updated to
> support chips that were made in the past 12 years and to build
> properly.

My frustration says please please please remove blackfin with sugar on
top. If you look at the new unified siginfo.h you will notice that
blackfin has the majority of conflicting si_code definitions.

Given that I have already dealt with the frustrating situations I can
wait a release or two. But even though I found a cross compiler for
blackfin there is a real cost to keeping it in the tree.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-26 23:13    [W:0.098 / U:2.560 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site