On 28.02.2018 08:17, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 28/02/2018 07:11, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 27.02.2018 12:51, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> I propose that we deprecate and plan to remove the unicore32 code: >> [...] >>> Essentially, it seems to be a largely-inactive university R&D project, >>> it's costing us in maintenance effort every time we have to touch it, >>> and I don't think it has any real users. >>> >>> Does anybody disagree? >>> >>> If we go ahead with deprecating then we should: >>> * add a note to Changelog that we're deprecating the target >>> * ditto qemu-doc.texi's deprecation section >>> * patch hw/unicore32/puv3.c to warn on startup that it's deprecated >>> * remove it entirely for the 2.14 release >>> >>> We could also remove linux-user/unicore32 immediately, since >>> the linux-user target has been disabled for some time. >> >> Sounds reasonable to me, but let's wait a week or two for feedback from >> Guan Xuetao. > > Sounds good---thought I would consider dropping unicore32 now with no > formal deprecation period... > >>> Possibly there are other target architectures we could reasonably >>> deprecate-and-remove (though none of the other ones Linux is dropping >>> in this round are ones we support)... >> >> I'd vote for marking tilegx as deprecated, too, since we even do not >> have an active maintainer for that CPU core (at least I did not spot one >> in our MAINTAINERS file). Opinions? > > Tilegx has been last modified in 2015, so it's a little more alive than > unicore32. > > Another one is moxie. Anthony?
For moxie, we've got at least a maintainer in MAINTAINERS, and there is still a proper project page online (http://moxielogic.org/blog/pages/architecture.html). And since we've now also got a mini Moxie TCG test in tests/boot-serial-test.c, the CPU code is at least still basically working fine. So IMHO there's no urgent need to mark the moxie CPU as deprecated yet. Thomas
