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  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:   Fri, 29 May 2020 00:32:07 +0200
From:   John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <>
To:     Rich Felker <>,
        Christoph Hellwig <>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <>,,,,, Rob Landley <>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] sh: remove sh5 support

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!

> 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.

Would be great to also hear back from Sato-san, he is still active
on his other Linux trees [1].

> 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!


> [1]

 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer -
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin -
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Powered by blists - more mailing lists