Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <3a17e91259b4f7538530ab652eb2a72fddbbc170.camel@buserror.net>
From:   Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net>
To:     Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Date:   Fri, 09 Jul 2021 13:26:36 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20210111082823.99562-1-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
References: <20210111082823.99562-1-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.0-1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Retire remaining WindRiver embedded SBC BSPs
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2021-01-11 at 03:28 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> In v2.6.27 (2008, 917f0af9e5a9) the sbc8260 support was implicitly
> retired by not being carried forward through the ppc --> powerpc
> device tree transition.
> 
> Then, in v3.6 (2012, b048b4e17cbb) we retired the support for the
> sbc8560 boards.
> 
> Next, in v4.18 (2017, 3bc6cf5a86e5) we retired the support for the
> 2006 vintage sbc834x boards.
> 
> The sbc8548 and sbc8641d boards were maybe 1-2 years newer than the
> sbc834x boards, but it is also 3+ years later, so it makes sense to
> now retire them as well - which is what is done here.
> 
> These two remaining WR boards were based on the Freescale MPC8548-CDS
> and the MPC8641D-HPCN reference board implementations.  Having had the
> chance to use these and many other Fsl ref boards, I know this:  The
> Freescale reference boards were typically produced in limited quantity
> and primarily available to BSP developers and hardware designers, and
> not likely to have found a 2nd life with hobbyists and/or collectors.
> 
> It was good to have that BSP code subjected to mainline review and
> hence also widely available back in the day. But given the above, we
> should probably also be giving serious consideration to retiring
> additional similar age/type reference board platforms as well.
> 
> I've always felt it is important for us to be proactive in retiring
> old code, since it has a genuine non-zero carrying cost, as described
> in the 930d52c012b8 merge log.  But for the here and now, we just
> clean up the remaining BSP code that I had added for SBC platforms.

Acked-by: Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net>

-Scott