Re: [PATCH 5/7] openrisc: Support both old (or32) and new (or1k) toolchain

[Stafford Horne]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Jonas Bonn wrote:

> On 09/19/2016 04:04 PM, Stafford Horne wrote:
> >  On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >
> > >  On 09/19/2016 02:11 AM, Stafford Horne wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >   On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > >   On 09/18/2016 11:02 PM, Stafford Horne wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >    On Sun, 18 Sep 2016, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > > > > > >    Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > >    If you plan to handle openrisc going forward, it would be 
> > > > great > > > >    if you > could
> > > > > > >    consider updating MAINTAINERS. The web site and git 
> > > >  repository have > > >   been > unreachable
> > > > > > >    for a long time.
> > > > > > > >    Thank you,
> > > > > >    Updating maintainers was kind of on my plans, but I figured I 
> > > >  need to
> > > > > >    prove that I kind of know what I am doing.
> > > > > > > >   The alternative would be to mark it as Orphaned. Which, for 
> > > > all >   practical purpose,
> > > > >   would be the correct state right now.
> > > > 
> > > >   +CC The openrisc list
> > > > 
> > > >   Understood, I don't think we would want that to happen.
> > > > 
> > >  Look at the entry today:
> > > 
> > >  OPENRISC ARCHITECTURE
> > >  M:      Jonas Bonn <jonas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >  W:      http://openrisc.net
> > >  S:      Maintained
> > >  T:      git git://openrisc.net/~jonas/linux
> > >  F:      arch/openrisc/
> > > 
> > >  At the very least, W: and T: are incorrect and need to be updated or 
> > >  removed.
> > >  Plus, apparently there is a L:, and "T: 
> > >  https://github.com/openrisc/linux";
> > >  might be appropriate.
> > > 
> >
> >  Thanks,
> >  I am aware of this, we have since setup a new website, mailing list and as
> >  you have found, git repo. Stefan has been nominated as the maintainer by
> >  Jonas on a previous mail thread.
> >
> >  The issue (as we see it) is that neither Stefan or I have signed PGP keys
> >  by anyone in the web of trust.
> >
> >  I sent this patch set with a cover lett trying to explain of the situation
> >  trying to get some help.  Your reponses are very helpful.
> >
> >  Do you think I should just send "git pull" reuqests to Linus with a self
> >  signed pgp key and eplaination to see how it goes?
>
> The bigger question I would have at this point is the value of the code 
> remaining upstream...  Five years ago, there was a promise to try to get the 
> toolchain upstream within a year or two; to this day, I don't know that much 
> progress has been made there so this architecture still requires a 
> hodge-podge of tools from various sources to build.
>
> Given the toolchain maintainer's general reluctance to move things upstream, 
> I'd almost be inclined to just remove the OpenRISC arch from the kernel 
> altogether.  Are there any other arch's that can't be built with an upstream 
> GCC at this point?

Hi Jonas,
We have tried to get the toolchain in order in the last year.  The latest 
efforts is headlined by a toolchain build tutorial here:
  http://openrisc.io/newlib/building.html

The main toolchain project
 binutils-gdb - is upstreamed, I have been working on getting more of the
                but there are many patches sitting in our repo on github
                I have been working on getting them rebased to 7.11 and
                upstreamed.
 newlib       - is upstreamed, with my gdb fixes I have also worked on
                fixing some bugs in the last year.
 gcc          - this is the problem, the gcc code has not been signed over
                to the fsf by the original authors.  A clean-room rewrite
                seems to needed last I checked

The projects are all being maintained on the openrisc github page and we 
are trying to keep it going.

The attraction of openrisc, I would say, is that its one of the only fully 
open platforms in the kernel. Its also relatively simple so for hobbyist 
and students who want to have a 32-bit cpu which they can do 'full-stack' 
development on it fits a good nitch.

Keeping it upstream means also this code base is not getting stale. But we 
do need people to look after it and the patches.

-Stafford

> >  -Stafford
> >
> >  FYI
> >  I have a change as following in my backlog, as follows:
> >
> >  ---
> >  @@ -8691,10 +8063,12 @@ F:      drivers/of/overlay.c
> >   F:     drivers/of/resolver.c
> >
> >  OPENRISC ARCHITECTURE
> >  -M:    Jonas Bonn <jonas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >  -W:    http://openrisc.net
> >  +M:    Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >  +M:    Stafford Horne <shorne@xxxxxxxxx>
> >  +W:    http://openrisc.io
> >  +L:    openrisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >  +T:    https://github.com/openrisc/linux.git
> >  S:    Maintained
> >  -T:    git git://openrisc.net/~jonas/linux
> >   F:    arch/openrisc/
> >
> >   OPENVSWITCH
> >
> >  --