Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 May 2020 18:37:23 -0400 | From | Rich Felker <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] sh: remove sh5 support |
| |
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:32:07AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Hello Rich! > > On 5/29/20 12:14 AM, Rich Felker wrote: > > To follow up, I see that there was a patch series of yours (3/24) I > > missed ack'ing fairly recently. At first glance it looks good. It > > happened to arrive while I was getting over being horribly sick with > > what I thought was covid19. If there's further action needed on it > > I'll address it asap now that I'm aware of it. > > Glad to hear from you again! I hope you have fully recovered!
Yes, but it took a good while to get fully better, and according to tests it wasn't even covid19. Certainly shaped my view on taking the pandemic seriously at an appropriate time, though!
> > In general, most of the patches I see are things that the linux-sh > > list and myself end up cc'd on that are only tangentially related to > > arch/sh or even not related at all. In that case I normally trust > > other maintainers familiar with the cross-arch changes being made that > > the small arch/sh part of the change is ok if the broader change is > > abstractly ok. > > > > Part of why I really disliked the "just kill it all" response to this > > thread is that the sh5 removal is specifically for the sake of making > > the arch more maintainable. That, along with forward-porting Sato's > > SH4 device tree patches (I've tried this but ran into problems, and > > need some help with it), has long been on my agenda for the arch, to > > reduce (and ultimately eliminate) the amount of legacy "only on > > arch/sh" stuff left so that it's not a burden on other maintainers and > > contributors. Seeing sentiment along the lines of "why don't you just > > remove it all while you're at it?" as a response is disheartening and > > also dismissive of Arnd's work making the sh5 removal happen. > > I agree. I have also poured endless hours into Debian's sh4 port fixing > dozens of bugs myself and reporting them upstream whenever I couldn't > fix them myself. > > I would also like to add that getting device tree support into SH would > be a huge leap forward and I would be happy to help with the efforts. I > still have some LANDISK and NextVoD devices available if anyone needs > hardware for testing and development, FWIW.
And I still have the NextVoD and LANDISK. The NextVoD is ST-based, so not supported at all by upstream kernel, only the abandoned stlinux. I've long wanted to pull support for ST hardware back into mainline, and I think DT makes this viable rather than just a huge new mess on top of undermaintained code, but it'll need help to make it happen.
> Would be great to also hear back from Sato-san, he is still active > on his other Linux trees [1].
Yes.
> > Aside from that, the open source & open hardware J-core models are > > still active and in development, with the latest release having been > > made this month, and the J32 with MMU nearly complete and pending > > release, contingent mostly on integration and testing with Linux. > > And I'm still very much looking forward to these. I will certainly > buy a bunch of J32 to use them as buildds for Debian's sh4 port!
Great!
Rich
| |