Bastian Koppelmann <kbast...@mail.uni-paderborn.de> writes: > On 02/28/2018 07:11 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 27.02.2018 12:51, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> I propose that we deprecate and plan to remove the unicore32 code: >> [...] > [...] >> >> Sounds reasonable to me, but let's wait a week or two for feedback from >> Guan Xuetao. > > Agreed. > >> >>> 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? > > I always saw it as a big plus that QEMU supports nearly any > architecture, no matter how obscure it is. So I'm a bit more hesitant on > dropping architectures quickly.
All things being equal I agree, however there is a maintenance burden for the QEMU upstream, especially if the only active use if on out-of-tree branches or behind the closed doors of research groups. Looking at https://wiki.qemu.org/Documentation/Platforms/TileGX it doesn't give much of an idea of where I would get toolchains to build guest binaries or what guest user-space I could run. -- Alex Bennée
