On Mon, 2023-02-27 at 14:48 -0600, Li Yang wrote: > On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 10:52 AM Paul Gortmaker > <paul.gortma...@windriver.com> wrote: > > > > [RE: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Remove some e300/MPC83xx evaluation platforms] On > > 24/02/2023 (Fri 21:16) Leo Li wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortma...@windriver.com> > > > > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 5:59 AM > > > > To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > > > > Cc: Leo Li <leoyang...@nxp.com>; Claudiu Manoil > > > > <claudiu.man...@nxp.com>; > > > > Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortma...@windriver.com>; Scott Wood > > > > <o...@buserror.net>; Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au>; Benjamin > > > > Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org>; Paul Mackerras > > > > <pau...@samba.org> > > > > Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Remove some e300/MPC83xx evaluation platforms > > > > > > > > [This RFC is proposed for v6.4 and hence is based off linux-next.] > > > > > > > > This series removes support for four e300 (MPC83xx) Freescale processor > > > > family evaluation boards that were added to the kernel in the 2006 era. > > > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > > > I talked with our marketing team on this. Although we do not recommend > > > any new design with these SoCs, they are still being shipped in large > > > amount to customers now. Plus it is possible for the bigger amount of > > > existing devices to be updating their software that includes a new > > > kernel. So we should definitely keep all the common SoC code that might > > > be needed to support their own design. > > > > Thanks for confirming with your marketing team that they "do not > > recommend any new design with these SoCs" -- it also confirms the > > information I read on the web pages for the platforms. > > > > As those of us immersed in this world all know from the 101 basics of > > Product Life Cycle lessons, it doesn't matter if it is a phone or a > > set-top-box/PVR or whatever else kind of non-PC consumer device -- > > kernel uprevs never happen in that product space. > > One thing is that the QorIQ platforms are not for the consumer > devices. They are mostly used in networking or communication > equipment. I think their product life cycle would be more like the > server or data center scenario. > > Regards, > Leo > > > > So with the best interests of the mainline kernel in mind, I think we > > are good to proceed with this for summer 2023. And of course as I've > > said many times before - the kernel is in git, so really you can't > > delete anything anyway - it remains in history forever. > > > > Thanks, > > Paul. > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > These boards were all of a very similar form factor, a largish PCI or > > > > PCI-X card > > > > that could also be used standalone with an external power brick, and all > > > > shared the Modular Development System (MDS) designation. > > > > > > > > These platforms were made in limited quantity and were generally > > > > designed > > > > to get early silicon into the hands of OEMs who would later develop > > > > their > > > > own boards/platforms. As such, availability was limited to those who > > > > would > > > > be working on boards and/or BSP support. > > > > > > > > Many early revision MDS platforms used a mechanical clamping system to > > > > hold the BGA CPU in place to facilitate CPU updates -- something not > > > > normally possible for a soldered down BGA in a COTS system. > > > > > > > > The point of these details is to give context that reflects that these > > > > four > > > > boards were made in limited quantities, were not in a form factor that > > > > is > > > > really "hobbyist" friendly and hence make sense for removal 17 years > > > > later. > > > > > > We would agree with you that the MDS platforms are only used by a limited > > > number of customers for evaluation purpose, so it should be fine to be > > > removed. So for this series: > > > > > > Acked-by: Li Yang <leoyang...@nxp.com> > > > > > > > > > > > Here, we remove the MPC8548E-MDS[1], the MPC8360E-MDS[2], the > > > > MPC837xE-MDS[3], and the MPC832x-MDS[4] board support from the kernel. > > > > > > > > There will still exist several e300 Freescale Reference Design System > > > > (RDS) > > > > boards[5] and mini-ITX boards[6] with support in the kernel. While > > > > these > > > > were more of a COTS "ready to deploy" design more suited to hobbyists, > > > > it > > > > probably makes sense to consider removing these as well, based on age. > > > > > > These boards are mass market boards that sold in larger amount and are > > > much more likely to still be used. We would suggest we keep them for now.
Agreed, the RDS design is still used here. > >
