linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Add support for BK3 board

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:26:47 +0100
From:   Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...il.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arndbergmann@...il.com>,
        Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@...ionengravers.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Add support for BK3 board

Hello Linus!

On Wed Dec 13 08:34:22 2017 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de> wrote:
> Out of curiosity: Liebherr is obviously doing heavy-duty industrial
> control systems. Likewise Hartley is doing similar business over
> at Vision Engravings.
> 
> Is the situation such that there is a whole bunch of industrial
> systems out there, in active use and needing future upgrades,
> that use the EP93xx?

That's definitely the case. I'm as well aware of several thousands of industrial devices which are expected to run 24/7 for the next 5 years at least. And they are updated from time to time.

> Arnd has been nudging me to do DT conversion for EP93xx
> so if there are many active industrial users of these
> I should prioritize it, because these things have 20+ years
> support cycles.

I'm not sure how important or necessary at all is to change anything in these legacy platforms.

> We also need to think about upholding support in GCC for
> ARMv4(t) for the foreseeable future if there is a big web of
> random deeply embedded systems out there that will need
> updates.

But we should definitely preserve at least what we have.

--
Alexander.