Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 11:32:25 -0800 From: Mark Millard via freebsd-arm <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> To: tech-lists <tech-lists@zyxst.net> Cc: Free BSD <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 14: Poll armv6 deprecated or removed Message-ID: <EAA799D0-1C8D-451A-977A-A2645A52F219@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <341A49EC-241C-43E7-8380-D2EE2F8C59F4@yahoo.com> References: <CANCZdfr_WsHbbeY6FyKxFdx7dOaFEhk%2BiJLYQ6F4rLOUuf-zRQ@mail.gmail.com> <YYJXCgH3NADcO8X5@server.rulingia.com> <YYJmVd4w/UcUkC4i@ceres.zyxst.net> <CAK7dMtAta=uv48omVA8HwnXh8VUZR_oX8_xUYSD2Y0AqfoD9zw@mail.gmail.com> <YYPzTRDcoISN8RNj@ceres.zyxst.net> <B559CC04-6D09-4BC1-A182-1DA424D3134B@yahoo.com> <YYRE6HTEaVm8%2Bsz1@ceres.zyxst.net> <341A49EC-241C-43E7-8380-D2EE2F8C59F4@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2021-Nov-4, at 14:18, Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2021-Nov-4, at 13:39, tech-lists <tech-lists@zyxst.net> wrote: >=20 >> On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 11:53:18AM -0700, Mark Millard via = freebsd-arch wrote: >>=20 >>> Without one or more developers willing to keep ARM11 based RPi* = FreeBSD >>> working as FreeBSD updates, the code will break. Other architectures >>> have been removed for such. Folks that do not want to work on such = code >>> do not want to have to work on it to keep FreeBSD building and = operating >>> for other architectures that have active developmers/maintainers. >>>=20 >>> If there were active FreeBSD developers for ARM11 RPi*'s, the = removal >>> would have been unlikely to be proposed at all, even if the use was >>> minor. FreeBSD is driven by the developer context directly, not the >>> usage context directly.=20 >>=20 >> OK. I can understand that. No developers want to work on it so no >> interest. That's straightforward, logical, bad for me but I can >> understand it and work around it. But that was not mentioned by the = OP. >>=20 >> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:44:20AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: >>=20 >>>> Given that the number of available and useful armv6 boards has = fallen >>>> to almost zero, the time has come to look hard at armv6. >>=20 >> I'm objecting to this because "available and useful" is impossible to = measure. "Available" is going to be a very large number, because of >> the number of sales and popularity of these boards, and that they are >> durable. So stuff made years ago can logically be presumed to be = still >> in working order. Even if 0.1% of rpi1b users used freebsd on their >> boards, it'll still be a big number. FreeBSD does not record anywhere = the context in which it is used. And "useful" depends on who is using it = for what and is an opinion. >>=20 >>> NetBSD supports a lot of systems that FreeBSD does not. That fact = has >>> never justified having support for those systems in FreeBSD.=20 >>=20 >> I'm not saying that. What I'm asking is the reasoning. >>=20 >> "we don't want to support it anymore" is a reason >> "no devs are interested" is a reason >>=20 >> "the number of available and useful armv6 boards has fallen to almost >> zero" is objectively false and so therefore is not a reason. And = because >> it is not a reason then justifications following it will also be >> incorrect. >=20 > I'll note that: >=20 > https://www.netbsd.org/releases/formal-9/NetBSD-9.2.html >=20 > indicates: ARMv6 (Raspberry Pi 1 only) >=20 > so NetBSD does not have general armv6 support, just support for > the RPi*'s that are ARM11 based. (Another page mentions RPi0 and > RPi0w examples as "expected to work", although needing FDT files. > See: https://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/evbarm/raspberry_pi/ and its > earmv6hf material.) >=20 > The lack of a variety of sources of armv6 or ARM11 that NetBSD > supports is likely a kind of property being referenced: even for > NetBSD no other ARM11's are targeted. >=20 > Basically, even for NetBSD, one has to be interested in supporting > (some) RPi*'s in order to be interested in supporting ARM11. There > is not much of any other ARM11 market for NetBSD (or FreeBSD). >=20 >>=20 >> I'm interested to know what NetBSD's reasons are in having tier-1 >> support for armv6, but I'll ask that on their lists. I'll also note that Fedora is at the proposal stage for removal of armv7 (yes: 7) in fc37. From: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RetireARMv7 is (in part): QUOTE Detailed Description The ARMv7 arm architecture was the second variant of the arm = architecture that Fedora has supported, the first was ARMv5, the third = is aarch64. The proposal is to retire ARMv7 as part of the Fedora 37 = release. This will allow ARMv7/armhfp to be supported until the Fedora = 36 end of life in around June 2023. Overall arm32 is generally waning with generally few new ARMv7 devices = added to Fedora in recent releases. To add to that a number of newer = Fedora features designed to improve speed and security of the Fedora = release are causing 32 bit architectures in general primarily due to the = process memory limit when linking large applications. The ARMv7/armhfp = is the last fully supported 32 bit architecture, we still currently = build i686 packages, but it's not shipped as artefacts. Benefit to Fedora The primary benefit is to maintainers of the ARM architecture, the = various toolchain teams and package maintainers in general. END QUOTE =3D=3D=3D Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com ( dsl-only.net went away in early 2018-Mar)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?EAA799D0-1C8D-451A-977A-A2645A52F219>