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, 20 Dec 2017 13:33:00 +0100
From:   Linus Walleij <>
To:     Lukasz Majewski <>
Cc:     Alexander Sverdlin <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Hartley Sweeten <>,
        Russell King <>,
        Linux ARM <>,
        "" <>,
        Olof Johansson <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Add support for BK3 board

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Lukasz Majewski <> wrote:
>> On Wed Dec 13 08:34:22 2017 Linus Walleij <>
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Lukasz Majewski <>
>> > 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.
> I can agree with this statement.

OK I'm coloring this platform with a highlight for ARM32 maintenance.

>> > 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.
> +1

That is an understandable conservative stance.

There is a fine line between "it works, don't touch it" and
"modernize the ARM32 ecosystem".

There is a point where supporting old board files will stand in
the way and cost a lot in maintenance (like moving drivers our
of arch/arm, or modernizing misc subsystems). Then moving the
platform over to device tree should be preferred.

> I'm using OE to build toolchain (SDK). I can confirm that gcc 7.2 works
> with it.
> And yes, armv4 support shall be preserved in GCC ....

Yes that is the same toochain I use.

Linus Walleij

Powered by blists - more mailing lists