Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2025 18:29:20 +0000 From: Minsoo Choo <minsoochoo0122@proton.me> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What's the plan for powerpc64 in FreeBSD 16 Message-ID: <Wd6TGx4GOC1XbKnCdGB3NtUUvsaFLiRqb_aW7m29BKARRj41wbyYiH5IHjZPEBe3Qs_SQ5DOKORCzEPDRqC01whFEwWcKeNtb27lTJGpb4M=@proton.me> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfrQthqYeGYD_9LRcH94JJZuF2%2BUxAqf7Lcoe6p5VzJf9g@mail.gmail.com> References: <CANCZdfrQthqYeGYD_9LRcH94JJZuF2%2BUxAqf7Lcoe6p5VzJf9g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
Resending this message since I forgot to "reply all" :(
Hi Warner,
On Monday, November 17th, 2025 at 11:58 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> As we're getting close to the release date for FreeBSD 15.0, it's time to take stock of another architectures. This time, I'd like your feedback on the following plans.
>
> We'd like to retire powerpc64 and powerpc64le just before the FreeBSD stable/16 branch.
>
> This would give powerpc64 another two years of support in main, followed by sustaining support on stable/14 and stable/15 until the end of those branches.
>
> We've come to this point because the port is dwindling and we have a cost associated with keeping it around. The number of developers has fallen off so only a couple remain. Issues in powerpc are taking longer and longer to discover and resolve. The hardware has been a huge source of frustration for clusteradmin and we've no alternative for developers. There's only a tiny user base. We have trouble building packages for it. Also, powerpc has a number of interesting features of the architecture that make it the odd arch out.
>
> It's also big endian. While that may seem like a reason to keep it around, if we really can't support it and we're not actively testing functionality of the system, then keeping this around actually doesn't help keep us honest. It just gives us a burden we must bear.
>
> In my opinion, powerpc64 appears to have already fallen below critical mass, despite being a sentimental favorite for a number of FreeBSD developers. As such, I'd like us to consider planning to retire it before we branch 16.
>
> My questions today: Are you using this port? How many people are using it? And what's the installed base? It appears to be somewhat less than that of either i386 or armv7 based on user surveys and popularity at conferences. Also, any other comments you might have.
>
> Warner
I was thinking about this as well since the discussion on armv7. I think big-endian powerpc should be removed from releases from FreeBSD 16 for the following reasons.
- Big endian usage is not used widely anymore. Even most POWER systems on linux run on little-endian, and most Linux distros like RHEL only provides little-endian and not big-endian.
- As FreeBSD is a complete operating system, if the powerpc is causing issues not only in kernel but also for utilities and ports due to lack of developers and hardware, there is no need to maintain them. Linux is a kernel, so Linux developers can maintain kernel only for powerpc64be and other developers take the responsibility of implementing libraries and utilities. FreeBSD cannot take this approach, and if the cost is bigger than the benefit, we should remove it.
- This also applies to deprecation of 32-bit platforms, but there is no need to consider big endian compatibility unless we have valid reason. So far, all the major platforms we support are little-endian or bi-endian, and even bi-endian platforms like aarch64 and POWER mostly run on little endian operating systems. Is there a new architecture or even ongoing discussion of them that will be based on big endian (or 32-bit) where FreeBSD can shine? If not, there is no need to consider compatibility for future architectures.
- I think we should've dropped powerpc bi-endian support when we dropped armv6 as powerpc predates armv6. I've seen some old armv6 hardware few times, but I've never seen big-endian only powerpc hardware in my life. I'm still thinking on which position to take for the armv7 discussion, but I'm definitely leaning towards deprecation for powerpc64be's case.
I think we should've dropped powerpc bi-endian support when we dropped armv6 as powerpc predates armv6. I've seen some old armv6 hardware few times, but I've never seen big-endian only powerpc hardware in my life. I'm still thinking on which position to take for the armv7 discussion, but I'm definitely leaning towards deprecation for powerpc64be's case.
>
[-- Attachment #2 --]
<div class="protonmail_quote" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Resending this message since I forgot to "reply all" :(</div><div class="protonmail_quote" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div class="protonmail_quote" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Hi Warner,</div><div class="protonmail_quote"><br></div><div class="protonmail_quote">
On Monday, November 17th, 2025 at 11:58 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:<br></div><div class="protonmail_quote">
<blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Greetings,<div><br></div><div>As we're getting close to the release date for FreeBSD 15.0, it's time to take stock of another architectures. This time, I'd like your feedback on the following plans.</div><div><br></div><div>We'd like to retire powerpc64 and powerpc64le just before the FreeBSD stable/16 branch.</div><div><br></div><div>This would give powerpc64 another two years of support in main, followed by sustaining support on stable/14 and stable/15 until the end of those branches.</div><div><br></div><div>We've come to this point because the port is dwindling and we have a cost associated with keeping it around. The number of developers has fallen off so only a couple remain. Issues in powerpc are taking longer and longer to discover and resolve. The hardware has been a huge source of frustration for clusteradmin and we've no alternative for developers. There's only a tiny user base. We have trouble building packages for it. Also, powerpc has a number of interesting features of the architecture that make it the odd arch out.</div><div><br></div><div>It's also big endian. While that may seem like a reason to keep it around, if we really can't support it and we're not actively testing functionality of the system, then keeping this around actually doesn't help keep us honest. It just gives us a burden we must bear.</div><div><br></div><div>In my opinion, powerpc64 appears to have already fallen below critical mass, despite being a sentimental favorite for a number of FreeBSD developers. As such, I'd like us to consider planning to retire it before we branch 16.</div><div><br></div><div>My questions today: Are you using this port? How many people are using it? And what's the installed base? It appears to be somewhat less than that of either i386 or armv7 based on user surveys and popularity at conferences. Also, any other comments you might have.</div><div><br></div><div>Warner</div></div></blockquote><div style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span>I was thinking about this as well since the discussion on armv7. I think big-endian powerpc should be removed from releases from FreeBSD 16 for the following reasons. </span></div><div style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span><br></span></div><div style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><ol data-editing-info="{"orderedStyleType":3,"unorderedStyleType":1}" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><li style="list-style-type: "1) ";"><span><span> Big endian usage is not used widely anymore. Even most POWER systems on linux run on little-endian, and most Linux distros like RHEL only provides little-endian and not big-endian. </span></span></li><li style="list-style-type: "2) ";"><span><span>As FreeBSD is a complete operating system, if the powerpc is causing issues not only in kernel but also for utilities and ports due to lack of developers and hardware, there is no need to maintain them. Linux is a kernel, so Linux developers can maintain kernel only for powerpc64be and other developers take the responsibility of implementing libraries and utilities. FreeBSD cannot take this approach, and if the cost is bigger than the benefit, we should remove it. </span></span></li><li style="list-style-type: "3) ";"><span><span>This also applies to deprecation of 32-bit platforms, but there is no need to consider big endian compatibility unless we have valid reason. So far, all the major platforms we support are little-endian or bi-endian, and even bi-endian platforms like aarch64 and POWER mostly run on little endian operating systems. Is there a new architecture or even ongoing discussion of them that will be based on big endian (or 32-bit) where FreeBSD can shine? If not, there is no need to consider compatibility for future architectures. </span></span></li><li style="list-style-type: "4) ";"><span><span>I think we should've dropped powerpc bi-endian support when we dropped armv6 as powerpc predates armv6. I've seen some old armv6 hardware few times, but I've never seen big-endian only powerpc hardware in my life. I'm still thinking on which position to take for the armv7 discussion, but I'm definitely leaning towards deprecation for powerpc64be's case. </span><br></span></li></ol><div><br></div><div><span>I think we should've dropped powerpc bi-endian support when we dropped armv6 as powerpc predates armv6. I've seen some old armv6 hardware few times, but I've never seen big-endian only powerpc hardware in my life. I'm still thinking on which position to take for the armv7 discussion, but I'm definitely leaning towards deprecation for powerpc64be's case.</span><br></div></div><div style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite">
</blockquote></div>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Wd6TGx4GOC1XbKnCdGB3NtUUvsaFLiRqb_aW7m29BKARRj41wbyYiH5IHjZPEBe3Qs_SQ5DOKORCzEPDRqC01whFEwWcKeNtb27lTJGpb4M=>