Re: ppc64el porter situation

2016-10-24 Thread Lennart Sorensen
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 09:01:26PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Are they developing new powerpc products? AMCC? I have no idea. Maybe not. Freescale certainly seems to be. > Their latest products are also pretty ARM. That they are. > Are you talking about new e6500 SoCs, or are you only talki

Re: ppc64el porter situation

2016-10-22 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 01:30:13PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:18:39PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Freescala/NXP is not even on the OpenPOWER member list - this is not the > > old power.org > > Neither is AMCC as far as I can tell. Doesn't mean they aren't still

Re: ppc64el porter situation

2016-10-21 Thread Lennart Sorensen
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:18:39PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Freescala/NXP is not even on the OpenPOWER member list - this is not the > old power.org Neither is AMCC as far as I can tell. Doesn't mean they aren't still doing powerpc. > For their network processors Freescala/NXP is moving away

Re: ppc64el porter situation

2016-10-20 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 03:58:21PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 03:54:43PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > > I think Freescala/NXP might disagree. Not sure if the e6500 core could > > ruin ppc64el or not, but they certainly make a lot of powerpc chips. > > That should

Re: ppc64el porter situation

2016-10-20 Thread Lennart Sorensen
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 03:54:43PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > I think Freescala/NXP might disagree. Not sure if the e6500 core could > ruin ppc64el or not, but they certainly make a lot of powerpc chips. That should have said 'run' not 'ruin'. That would have been rather interesting otherw

Re: ppc64el porter situation

2016-10-20 Thread Lennart Sorensen
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:22:14PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeeGo#Companies_supporting_the_project > > That's also an impressive list of companies, isn't it? > When the one company that mattered switched to a different platform, > the whole platform collapsed immed

Re: ppc64el porter situation

2016-10-20 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:06:59PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Hi, Hi Aurelien, >... > To me it looks like they are really skilled for that job. Do you have > actual facts showing the contrary? Niels said that I shouldn't hesitate to let the release team know when I believe there is an issue

Re: ppc64el porter situation

2016-10-20 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 09:06:14AM -0200, Breno Leitao wrote: > Hello Adrian, Hi Breno, > Let me share my view as the only DD listed as ppc64el porter. thanks for your reply. Just to state it explicitely in case that was not clear, I do not have any problem with you personally or the ppc64el p

Re: ppc64el porter situation

2016-10-19 Thread Breno Leitao
Hello Adrian, Let me share my view as the only DD listed as ppc64el porter. On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:50:01PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Is a DM enough, if the only DD gets killed by a car [2] the day after > the release of stretch? The other DM is in the process of becoming a DD[1]. This migh

Re: ppc64el porter situation

2016-10-19 Thread Aurelien Jarno
Hi, On 2016-10-17 22:50, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Disclaimer: > I am not a member of the release team, and I am only speaking for myself. > > > The architecture requalification status for stretch [1] lists the > ppc64el porter situation as green, but there are three reasons w

ppc64el porter situation

2016-10-17 Thread Adrian Bunk
Disclaimer: I am not a member of the release team, and I am only speaking for myself. The architecture requalification status for stretch [1] lists the ppc64el porter situation as green, but there are three reasons why the situation doesn't look that good to me. First, official status o