Re: [Qemu-devel] Deprecate tilegx ?

[Waldemar Brodkorb]

Hi,

> Am 09.03.2018 um 16:13 schrieb Alex Bennée <address@hidden>:
> 
> 
> Bastian Koppelmann <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>>> On 02/28/2018 07:11 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>> On 27.02.2018 12:51, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>> I propose that we deprecate and plan to remove the unicore32 code:
>>> [...]
>> [...]
>>> 
>>> Sounds reasonable to me, but let's wait a week or two for feedback from
>>> Guan Xuetao.
>> 
>> Agreed.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> Possibly there are other target architectures we could reasonably
>>>> deprecate-and-remove (though none of the other ones Linux is dropping
>>>> in this round are ones we support)...
>>> 
>>> I'd vote for marking tilegx as deprecated, too, since we even do not
>>> have an active maintainer for that CPU core (at least I did not spot one
>>> in our MAINTAINERS file). Opinions?
>> 
>> I always saw it as a big plus that QEMU supports nearly any
>> architecture, no matter how obscure it is. So I'm a bit more hesitant on
>> dropping architectures quickly.
> 
> All things being equal I agree, however there is a maintenance burden
> for the QEMU upstream, especially if the only active use if on
> out-of-tree branches or behind the closed doors of research groups.
> 
> Looking at https://wiki.qemu.org/Documentation/Platforms/TileGX it
> doesn't give much of an idea of where I would get toolchains to build
> guest binaries or what guest user-space I could run.

Just from a user perspective, I like the different architecture support qemu 
provides. I use it often for regression testing of uClibc-ng.
Regarding tilegx I used qemu to start with the port of tilegx from glibc to 
uClibc-ng and it worked well for the binaries produced by OpenADK.

best regards
 Waldemar