[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3-G6Euq42zCRxyFmUfU23OKNQRebo1ExHtHgN3w8S4ww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 17:34:02 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>,
linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org, Chen Liqin <liqin.linux@...il.com>,
Lennox Wu <lennox.wu@...il.com>,
Guan Xuetao <gxt@...c.pku.edu.cn>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-metag@...r.kernel.org,
Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>,
Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>,
openrisc@...ts.librecores.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Removing architectures without upstream gcc support
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:28 PM, James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 04:45:06PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> * Meta was ImgTec's own architecture and they upstreamed the kernel
>> port just before they acquired MIPS. Apparently Meta was abandoned
>> shortly afterwards and disappeared from imgtec's website in 2014.
>> The maintainer is still fixing bugs in the port, but I could not find
>> any toolchain more recent than
>> https://github.com/img-meta/metag-buildroot/tree/metag-core/toolchain/gcc/4.2.4
>> Not sure about this one, I'd be interested in more background
>> from James Hogan, who probably has an opinion and might have
>> newer toolchain sources.
>
> Interesting timing! Have you seen this (which I'll send for 4.17, and
> leave 4.16 broken)?
>
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151925667323732&w=2
No, I missed that. Could have saved me some of the research I did
when coming up with the list ;-)
> The Meta port is essentially unused and for a while I have only looked
> at it when something went wrong. PURE's Linux based digital radios I
> believe were never updated to 3.10. The fact that the GCC port wasn't
> upstreamed before the MIPS acquisition meant it was always a ticking
> time bomb (though binutils was upstreamed).
>
> Sad really, given that at least 9 years of effort went into the port
> before permission was finally given to upstream it, and within a week or
> so of the first patchset the intention to acquire MIPS was announced.
Indeed.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists