Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 08:21:36 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> Cc: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: One last item: CNS1102 support removal Message-ID: <CANCZdfoaTnwtXih9rQ3%2B=KZCWRh9ZL8D3=QeJz7MeQtXbgP9xw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201807181416.w6IEGToZ007635@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <CANCZdfqYRPKTRBjWLM5K=qd1OAMGqFiKeQDBcWgORA5kxh_uLQ@mail.gmail.com> <201807181416.w6IEGToZ007635@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Rodney W. Grimes < freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > There's one last item in arm land for 12 I'd like to remove: The Econa / > > Cavium CN1102 support. > > > > It's literally received no updates since it was committed in 2010, apart > > from others doing kernel sweeps. It's unmaintained. Strike one. > > > > Second, it will be the last armv4 port in the tree after I remove Atmel. > We > > haven't had FreeBSD running on armv4 Atmel since FreeBSD 8. Strike two. > > > > Third, the original machines were released in 2005 or 2006. There's only > > one known board, according to https://wikidevi.com/wiki/Cavium, and it > came > > with only 16MB. So it's old and doesn't have much RAM. While barely > > possible, in theory, to run FreeBSD/arm in 16MB, it's a huge PITA. Strike > > three. > > > > Forth, I can find no mention of it in the archives or bug database. > Strike > > four. > > > > I'm lead to the conclusion that this is no longer maintained, has no > users, > > the hardware it was in has insufficient resources to run FreeBSD well and > > these things are unlikely to change. Therefore, we should remove it. > > > > Comments? > > Again, I thought it was the plan to write and ratify a deprecation > policy then start to purge the tree per the converstations at > BSDCan 2018. It seems your going the other way around. > No, I'm using the ARM removal to write the draft because there's significant agreement in the arm community, and a strong desire to purge. The community is also smaller, and it's easier to get consensus. Plus, this code is almost broken and won't work: It's been 4 major revisions since we had working armv4, so I'm rushing to get this done before 12. > Though yes, these are clear cases that probably should be purged, > they are also excelent examples to test the policy with and see > how well it works. > Well, that's why I'm doing a few easy cases: to provide case studies for the draft. Most of the other removal for x86 stuff was, at BSDcan, agreed we'd do the purge after 12 branched. > What is the status of the deprecation policy draft? > Mostly done. I should publish it next week on arch@ for discussion. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfoaTnwtXih9rQ3%2B=KZCWRh9ZL8D3=QeJz7MeQtXbgP9xw>