From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932672AbcAHSWN (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:22:13 -0500 Received: from 216-12-86-13.cv.mvl.ntelos.net ([216.12.86.13]:50781 "EHLO brightrain.aerifal.cx" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756425AbcAHSVy (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:21:54 -0500 Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:21:45 -0500 From: Rich Felker To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Simon Horman , Linux-sh list , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Yoshinori Sato , Andrew Morton , Peter Zijlstra , "D. Jeff Dionne" , Rob Landley Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] MAINTAINERS: remove linux-sh list from non-arch/sh sections Message-ID: <20160108182145.GA22240@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20160108043907.GA7005@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20160108044054.GA7130@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20160108065642.GA1215@verge.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 10:01:25AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Dropping linux-sh@vger.kernel.org from portions of the MAINTAINERS file as > > you suggest would essentially leave the Renesas ARM work without a mailing > > list or patchwork instance. Both of which are actively used for that work.. > > > > Off-hand I can think of three solutions to this problem: > > > > 1. Live with the noise > > 2. Establish a new list (and possibly patchwork instance) for the SH work.. > > 3. Establish a new list and patchwork instance for the ARM work. > > Personally, I'd go for option 1. > I would even like to propose H8/300 to join, as they share IP cores, too > (m32r doesn't, AFAIK). > > Many old ARM/SH-Mobile SoCs look like SH SoCs with an ARM CPU core bolted on. > Recent Renesas ARM SoCs still share many IP cores with older SH SoCs; most of > them even have a secondary SH4 CPU core. Using the SH4 CPU core could be useful > for doing SH4 work, until J4 becomes mainstream (cfr. old prototype in > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-sh/msg07188.html). > Probably the Jx series won't share IP cores with SH/ARM, but as arch/sh/ > maintainers you have to care about older Renesas SH platforms, too. > > For patchwork, that would mean some more delegation needs to be put in place. > > So far my 0.05€... Is that actually the case? I can't find any current support in the kernel for running on these SH4 cores, and I was under the impression that they were being phased out, if not already gone. And the bulk of the driver-related discussion I've seen on linux-sh over the past year does not seem to be related to hardware that's present/usable on boards where you can run Linux/SH. If this is incorrect, I'd like to hear some views on how/why such hardware is relevant to arch/sh. Rich