Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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 I'm lead to the conclusion that this is no longer maintained, has no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>