On Friday 24 Jan 2020 at 13:34:35 (+0000), Marc Zyngier wrote:

I don't disagree at all. To be honest, I've been on the cusp of getting
rid of it for a while, for multiple reasons:

- It has no users (as you noticed)
- It is hardly tested (a consequence of the above)
- It isn't feature complete (no debug, no PMU)
- It doesn't follow any of the evolution of the architecture (a more
  generic feature of the 32bit port, probably because people run their
  64bit-capable cores in 64bit mode)
- It is becoming a mess of empty stubs

The maintenance aspect hasn't been a real problem so far. Even the NV
support is only about 200 lines of stubs. But what you have in mind is
going to be much more invasive, and I wouldn't want an unused feature to
get in the way.

What I may end-up doing is to send a RFC series to remove the 32bit host
support from the tree during in the 5.6 cycle, targeting 5.7. If someone
shouts loudly during that time frame, we keep it and you'll have to work
around it. If nobody cares, then dropping it is the right thing to do.

Would that be OK with you?

Absolutely. And yes, if there are users of the 32 bits port, it'll be on
us to work around in a clean way, but I think this is perfectly fair.
I'll be happy to try and test your RFC series when it goes on the list
if that can help.

Thanks!
Quentin

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel