[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0J2Md=TefT6ZoiXqP2=tpma+JSfZ3UYmUZKRMNXLh2ig@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2021 16:36:31 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/SAMSUNG EXYNOS ARM ARCHITECTURES"
<linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Sylwester Nawrocki <snawrocki@...nel.org>,
Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
Inki Dae <inki.dae@...sung.com>, Cedric Roux <sed@...e.fr>,
Sam Van Den Berge <sam.van.den.berge@...enet.be>,
Lihua Yao <ylhuajnu@...look.com>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ARM: s3c: mark as deprecated and schedule removal
after 2022
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 3:55 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com> wrote:
> On 02/11/2021 14:05, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 12:05 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com> wrote:
> >
> > The ones that would help the most in removing are probably omap1,
> > pxa, and the strongarm-based platforms: those have a lot of special
> > cases in the code base. At least a year ago the maintainers wanted
> > to keep those around, but maybe the 2022 LTS kernel is a better
> > time for planned EOL.
>
> If the maintainers or users expressed wish to keep them alive, let's
> keep them. In fact there might be some industrial machine working for 20
> more years...
>
> If you did not receive any feedback about your queries, I am happy to
> add similar deprecation-warning notes to these as well. Just let me know
> which one should be affected.
There are definitely platforms with long service life, such as ep93xx
or ixp4xx, both of which are actively being worked on. For the other
ones, I think it worth asking again every other year or so, either for
modernising or dropping them in the long run.
> > check around them, I'm fine with it though -- it would still catch all
> > real users without bothering build-testing bots.
>
> I like that idea, I'll use it in v2. No one really should build a real
> config with COMPILE_TEST and I want to nag and find the real users.
>
> > I think even with CONFIG_WERROR, we don't fail the build for #warning,
> > so that would also work in place of #pragma message.
>
> It fails, I tried it. That's why #pragma.
Ok, #pragma with #ifdef is fine then.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists