Re: [PATCH 1/6] ARM: ks8695: watchdog: stop using mach/*.h

[Olof Johansson]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:44 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 4:27 PM Greg Ungerer <gerg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 4/5/19 3:06 am, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 08:16:05AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > >> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:02 AM Greg Ungerer <gerg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>> Ultimately though I am left wondering if the ks8695 support in the
> > >>> kernel is useful to anyone the way it is at the moment. With a minimal
> > >>> kernel configuration I can boot up to a shell - but the system is
> > >>> really unreliable if you try to interactively use it. I don't think
> > >>> it is the hardware - it seems to run reliably with the old code
> > >>> it has running from flash on it. I am only testing the new kernel,
> > >>> running with the existing user space root filesystem on it (which
> > >>> dates from 2004 :-)
> > >>
> > >> Personally I think it is a bad sign that this subarch and boards do
> > >> not have active OpenWrt support, they are routers after all (right?)
> > >> and any active use of networking equipment should use a recent
> > >> userspace as well, given all the security bugs that popped up over
> > >> the years.
>
> Looking around on the internet, I found that Micrel at some point
> had their own openwrt fork for ks8695, but I can't find a copy
> any more, as the micrel.com domain is no longer used after the
> acquisition by Microchip.
>
> https://wikidevi.com/wiki/Micrel has a list of devices based on
> ks8695, and it seems that most of these are rather memory
> limited, which is a problem for recent openwrt builds.
>
> Only two of the 17 listed devices have the absolute minimum of 4MB
> flash and 32MB RAM for openwrt, two more have 8/32 and one
> or two have 4/64, but all these configurations are too limited for the
> web U/I now.
>
> > >> With IXP4xx, Gemini and EP93xx we have found active users and
> > >> companies selling the chips and reference designs and even
> > >> recommending it for new products (!) at times.  If this is not the
> > >> case with KS8695 and no hobbyists are willing to submit it
> > >> to OpenWrt and modernize it to use device tree I think it should be
> > >> deleted from the kernel.
> > >>
> > >
> > > That may be the best approach if indeed no one is using it,
> > > much less maintaining it.
> >
> > Well, I for one don't really use it any more. So I don't have a lot
> > of motivation to maintain it any longer.
>
> I came across my patches while rebasing my backlog to 5.3-rc1.
>
> Should I save the (very small) trouble of sending them out again
> and just remove the platform then?

Given the lack of response/interest from users, I'm OK with removing it.

If someone shows up wanting support, we'll have a good opportunity to
discuss testing/modernization involving someone actively using the
hardware.


-Olof