Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 11:11:46 -0600 (CST) From: Timothy Pearson <tpearson@raptorengineering.com> To: Joseph Mingrone <jrm@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Minsoo Choo <minsoochoo0122@proton.me>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org>, Lance Albertson via RT <powerdev-request@osuosl.org> Subject: Re: What's the plan for powerpc64 in FreeBSD 16 Message-ID: <2114477564.125177.1764004306543.JavaMail.zimbra@raptorengineeringinc.com> In-Reply-To: <86fra523cs.fsf@asn.ftfl.ca> References: <CANCZdfrQthqYeGYD_9LRcH94JJZuF2%2BUxAqf7Lcoe6p5VzJf9g@mail.gmail.com> <CAFYkXjn%2BTWHevtMtPj9V7MLMHBChL%2BeqiBv1Puru0pkzRT14Vg@mail.gmail.com> <CY-i-pELVCQmckLJhTf0N-dArld84tgcWHIk6kdCByOWrGr4D2ukJaaXT8ryACKy3YAQDfgOwmAuWCb7_TshAEV6HG5hDG6jzvL_xfTmNx0=@proton.me> <86fra523cs.fsf@asn.ftfl.ca>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joseph Mingrone" <jrm@FreeBSD.org> > To: "Minsoo Choo" <minsoochoo0122@proton.me> > Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org>, "Lance Albertson via RT" <powerdev-request@osuosl.org> > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2025 2:56:35 PM > Subject: Re: What's the plan for powerpc64 in FreeBSD 16 > On Mon, 2025-11-17 at 18:24, Minsoo Choo <minsoochoo0122@proton.me> wrote: > >> Resending this message since I forgot to "replay all" :( > >> On Monday, November 17th, 2025 at 1:13 PM, Tomek CEDRO <tomek@cedro.info> wrote: > >>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 5:58 PM Warner Losh imp@bsdimp.com wrote: > >>> I guess the same as for ARMv7? Do not delete the code, so someone can >>> still use/work with it when needed, but mark "unsupported" or "tier 3" >>> or similar, then focus on new hardware platforms that lags behind >>> already? > >>> What does "retire" exactly mean? I hope its just lack of official >>> support but not the source code removal right? :-P > >>> -- >>> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > >> The problem is not just letting the code to sit in the source tree. Assume >> someone is making a change that needs modification to all architecture (maybe >> build system or very low-level stuff). How do they know that their code work on >> real hardware if there is no hardware or developers to work on a specific >> platform (in this case, big-endian powerpc)? Assume this patch is crucial for >> FreeBSD's evolution. Does powerpcbe worth enough to stall the review process >> due to testing/verification issue? If is it "unsupported" there is no reason to >> keep the code in the upstream. Someone else can fork the repository and >> maintain their own powerpcbe port. As long as it sits in the source tree, there >> is minimum effort needed (such as @releng) to check if the code works. While I agree, I do want to ensure everyone understands that powerpc64be != powerpc64le; it's very easy to inadvertently lump them together for this sort of discussion. I expect over time we will end up in a state where powerpc64be is broken and powerpc64le is functioning normally; the latter should block, the former should not in my opinion. > A group at the University of Oregon has some POWER systems available to us. If > you are interested, please contact Lance Albertson, who is copied here, as soon > as possible. He's been asking whether anyone is using the hardware and says we > risk losing access if no one shows interest. For all those folks that would like to help and don't have hardware access, this is a great alternative to the Raptor bare metal boxes. Especially for items like application development (e.g. furthering the Go port Raptor put together) these machines are a great resource -- I know Lance as well, so if there's any issues getting access set up just let me know. Thanks!home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2114477564.125177.1764004306543.JavaMail.zimbra>