[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] PPC: remove support for MPC82xx processors

[Holger Brunck]

Hello Wolfgang,

On 01/15/2014 12:04 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Holger,
> 
> In message <52D64089.6070207 at keymile.com> you wrote:
>>
>>> This commit removes support for the Freescale MPC82xx Power
>>> Architecture processors, i. e. MPC8240, MPC8245, MPC8247, MPC8248,
>>> MPC8250, MPC8255, MPC8260, MPC8265, MPC8266, MPC8272, MPC8280, ...
>>>
>>> They have been out of production for years, and no active users left
>>> here.  As some boards start causing problems, let's drop the obsolete
>>> and now dead code.
>>
>> thats not valid for us. Our mgcoge3ne target which comes with a MPC8247 is still
>> in production and maintained. If you look at the git log of
> 
> Argh... Can you foresee how much longer this hardware is likely to be
> maintained?
> 

uhm. There is currently no plan to stop the production of this board. So for the
next two years at least I would expect that they were still produced.

And as a sidenode I still have the request on my desk to integrate the POST
tests for this board, which we already have for our PPC83xx and kirkwood boards.

>> So isn't it possible to remove only the broken boards and keep the generic parts?
> 
> Yes, this would be possible, too.  But then, it appears you are the
> only remaining active user of MPC82xx.  OK, MPC8247 is actually still
> marked as "active" at Freescale, soory I missed that - the MPC824x
> types I checked were in "No Longer Manufactured" state.
> 
> The thing is that there are tons of interdependencies an #defines that
> need to be checked so we don't leave too many unused #defines and such
> around.
> 

yes I understand the desire to remove as much as unneeded code as possible.

> I see several options now:
> 
> 1) We apply the patch as is, and if you really have to modify your
>    code you would do this out-of-tree based on the last frozen
>    version.
> 

yes we could do that and keep a seperate branch for this board, but I don't like
this. I guess I don't need to explain why I would like to avoid an additional
branch on our site.

> 2) I rework the patch to remove only the MPC826x / MPC828x code.
> 

honestly this would be my favorite approach.

So if keeping 82xx support would't generate to much overload for u-boot I would
appreciate to keep it. But if it interferes with future u-boot development we
could also move it to a keymile specific branch.

And just out of curiosity. Why do you keep still 8xx board support? Is this more
in use then 82xx? This is suprising to me.

Regards
Holger