>On 26 October 2026 16:19:20 GMT, Vincent Jardin <[email protected]> wrote: >>Hi, >> >>> Isn't that a double edged sword? >>> >>> I mean, since PowerPC is SO inactive that like nobody will respond, and >>> it'll be limbo limbo limbo, just to merge say 24 removals and a >>> maintainers patch, especially the maintainers patch, that has nothing >>to do with the removals and that'll get all stuck up with the removals I >>think unless you have other plans, which is annoyance, because it is "oh >>so inactive" >>> >>> And I also made a additional maintainers patch that IDK where it will >>go!! >>> Either to my custodian tree (p,s: maintainers patch isn't merged yet!!) >>> >>> Or to another tree, yeah, odd, hm? >>> >>> (Sorry, I had a small vent, :c) >> >>I would not drop PPCs so quickly ; there are still many systems running >>PPCs >>even if folks are more in "don't touch things that work", I feel it'll >>change >>withint the upcoming months because of the scale of CVEs of those old >>systems >>and some new regulations in EU. Let's wait/watch, maybe one more year, >>before dropping. >> >>It seems long, but looking backward EU regulations will start to be >>effective only >>by end of 2027 and LLM -> explode of new CVEs are just starting... >>so the mindset of "don't touch, it works", it'll have to change. > >Yeah, I removed so many systems because it was 1: EOL, 2: Old, unmaintained >rubbish (well, some of them) > >But my concern is the one patch that has nothing to do with it. > >26/26, the maintainers patch, I already got a tree and stuff, but I >wouldn't know if like it'll > >A: get merged when they merge your fixes > >Or > >B: Merge when the removals get merged :( > >I'd prefer A personally, because of the fact that the patch has nothing to >do with it. If that makes sense. > >Id personally think a cleanup is more than due for this, I have millads >more cleanups to do when my maintainers patch gets merged, PowerPC as I >see it at the moment is in a slight disarray, well, it works, but it needs >to be cleaned and organised a bit. > >Id say 19+ more patches would be required in order to make this actually >clean ISH. > >Because for 1: power(8,9,10) isn't even implemented yet! What!? > >Well, I'm not sure about that being a priority because for 1: it can be >booted thru LPAR. Which, is odd. (Thanks IBM! :c) > >Personally, PowerPC needs a nice dustpan and brush across before it could >be classed as an actually clean architecture subsystem! > >And god forbid the bugs. Somebody with a AI will be having a field day >covering their ears going "la la la la bugs", because I can see bugs all >over the place! > >But thank god people still use ppc on u-boot, and for anybody reading this >using u-boot on their PowerPC as we speak, thank you so much for using it, >and me, as a maintainer(tm) and the whole community sends our unreserved >thanks for your use of it. > > > >> >>my 2 cents, >> Vincent > >--- Thanks!
Hi all, Just a data point from a user: we are using U-Boot on a T1040 (QorIQ / mpc85xx) in a product, and we intend to keep up with mainline as much as we can. We'd appreciate PowerPC support staying in tree, and we're happy to test patches on T1040 hardware and report back. We run u-boot in 32-bit mode (not sure if it is possible to use 64-bit) and linux in 64-bit. I am in the process of bringing it up to our 2025.07 branch and potentially mainlining as much as possible. We have some remnants of it under `board/keymile/kmcent2`. If any of the planned removals or cleanups touch T104x/QorIQ code or boards, please keep me and [email protected] on Cc. Thanks to everyone maintaining this. Best regards, Tomas
