Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 07:13:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> To: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> Cc: ticso@cicely.de, "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: De-orbit Allwinner A10/A20/A31 for 12.0 Message-ID: <201806191413.w5JED9TS069693@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <CACNAnaHXRYCpEyeXaUEZf2Fr=faP%2B7MdCVpyyxMROd%2BtWd4%2BcQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:10 AM, Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely7.cicely.de> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:43:52PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > >> I have all these boards... > >> > >> But they are getting old and nearly are unobtanium these days. Were it not > >> for the clocks thing, they'd be fine to run -current (I have a slightly pre > >> new clock version running on a couple of boards). I think I'm with you: we > >> need a maintainer who has done the work to bring them up to date, or they > >> need to go. > > > > Would be sad to see A20 go, it was such a popular SoC and I own a couple > > of boards with them, but I also don't have the time to help maintaining the > > code. > > Hi, > > Consider A20 off the chopping block- I want my Banana Pi R1 to > eventually be useful, so I added some basic clock support and we > should boot on these things again. > > A10 probably won't go away unless we actually have reported problems- > it's a similar enough SoC to the A20 that all of the clocks currently > implemented should be the same between the two based on my reading of > the documentation. I don't actually have any A10-based boards, though, > so I can't volunteer to explicitly maintain/test it. If an A10 board landed in your mailbox would you be willing to keep it inline with your A20 work? > Thanks, > Kyle Evans -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201806191413.w5JED9TS069693>