[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yw1xmvq64fmd.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:38:50 +0000
From: Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <egtvedt@...fundet.no>,
Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: avr32 build failures in linux-next
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>> On 02/08/2016 08:06 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not very surprising either. The number of people using Linux on avr32
>>>> is probably approximately zero, and if anyone is, they're likely still
>>>> running 2.6.32 or thereabouts.
>>>
>>>
>>> Once I tried up the topic about removal avr32 for good, but looks like
>>> it wasn't a good time. Maybe now is better? It would really reduce a
>>> burden on many drivers.
>>>
>> I would agree, as long as the maintainers agree. We don't want to repeat
>> the h8300 experience.
>
> So, are we going to agree that avr32 must be retired from next cycle?
>
> P.S. I have no idea how to fix this "…relocation truncated to fit:
> R_AVR32_21S…", though I can test anything anyone propose.
The error goes away if CONFIG_AIO_THREAD is disabled. Still don't know why.
--
Måns Rullgård
Powered by blists - more mailing lists