[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] Deprecate tilegx ?
From: |
Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] Deprecate tilegx ? |
Date: |
Wed, 28 Feb 2018 08:17:17 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 |
On 28/02/2018 07:11, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 27.02.2018 12:51, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> I propose that we deprecate and plan to remove the unicore32 code:
> [...]
>> Essentially, it seems to be a largely-inactive university R&D project,
>> it's costing us in maintenance effort every time we have to touch it,
>> and I don't think it has any real users.
>>
>> Does anybody disagree?
>>
>> If we go ahead with deprecating then we should:
>> * add a note to Changelog that we're deprecating the target
>> * ditto qemu-doc.texi's deprecation section
>> * patch hw/unicore32/puv3.c to warn on startup that it's deprecated
>> * remove it entirely for the 2.14 release
>>
>> We could also remove linux-user/unicore32 immediately, since
>> the linux-user target has been disabled for some time.
>
> Sounds reasonable to me, but let's wait a week or two for feedback from
> Guan Xuetao.
Sounds good---thought I would consider dropping unicore32 now with no
formal deprecation period...
>> Possibly there are other target architectures we could reasonably
>> deprecate-and-remove (though none of the other ones Linux is dropping
>> in this round are ones we support)...
>
> I'd vote for marking tilegx as deprecated, too, since we even do not
> have an active maintainer for that CPU core (at least I did not spot one
> in our MAINTAINERS file). Opinions?
Tilegx has been last modified in 2015, so it's a little more alive than
unicore32.
Another one is moxie. Anthony?
Thanks,
Paolo