On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Lukasz Majewski <lu...@denx.de> wrote: >> On Wed Dec 13 08:34:22 2017 Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org> >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Lukasz Majewski <lu...@denx.de> >> > wrote: Out of curiosity: Liebherr is obviously doing heavy-duty >> > industrial control systems. Likewise Hartley is doing similar >> > business over at Vision Engravings. >> > >> > Is the situation such that there is a whole bunch of industrial >> > systems out there, in active use and needing future upgrades, >> > that use the EP93xx? >> >> That's definitely the case. I'm as well aware of several thousands of >> industrial devices which are expected to run 24/7 for the next 5 >> years at least. And they are updated from time to time. > > I can agree with this statement.
OK I'm coloring this platform with a highlight for ARM32 maintenance. >> > Arnd has been nudging me to do DT conversion for EP93xx >> > so if there are many active industrial users of these >> > I should prioritize it, because these things have 20+ years >> > support cycles. >> >> I'm not sure how important or necessary at all is to change anything >> in these legacy platforms. > > +1 That is an understandable conservative stance. There is a fine line between "it works, don't touch it" and "modernize the ARM32 ecosystem". There is a point where supporting old board files will stand in the way and cost a lot in maintenance (like moving drivers our of arch/arm, or modernizing misc subsystems). Then moving the platform over to device tree should be preferred. > I'm using OE to build toolchain (SDK). I can confirm that gcc 7.2 works > with it. > > And yes, armv4 support shall be preserved in GCC .... Yes that is the same toochain I use. Yours, Linus Walleij
