Subject: deletion of boards

From: Pete Popov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:30:34 -0700

The AMD Pb1000, Pb1100, Pb1500, and Hydrogen3 boards are not up to date
in 2.6 and seem to be of very little interest to anyone. Any objections
if I remove them to reduce the clutter?

Pete

---

From: Thomas Sailer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:14:02 +0200

> if I remove them to reduce the clutter?

Yes. The Pb1000 mostly worked for me 3 months ago with 2.6, and I'm
interested in using it sometime in the near future...

Tom

---

From: Matej Kupljen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:22:14 +0200

Hi

> The AMD Pb1000, Pb1100, Pb1500, 

I know that in Pb1200 there is some code for DBAU1200,
but don't know for those boards.

BR,
Matej

---

From: Pete Popov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:26:10 -0700

> but don't know for those boards.

Pb1200 would stay. Actually, the support isn't in 2.6 yet but I'll be
working on that soon.

Pete

---

From: Matej Kupljen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:35:37 +0200

Hi

> Pb1200 would stay. Actually, the support isn't in 2.6 yet but I'll be

Great news!

Do you get any support from AMD?
Any plans to support MAE?

BR,
Matej

---

From: Ralf Baechle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:24:40 +0100

> if I remove them to reduce the clutter?

The inflation of evaluation boards is generally some sort of problem; in
many cases they are on the market only for a very short time before they're
replaced - we're talking about a time frame of like 6 months or so.  That
means the time that a Linux port is actually of interest if often just
as short.  Which means, we have quite a few candidates for deletion.

  Ralf

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 06:42:13 -0500 (CDT)

> as short.  Which means, we have quite a few candidates for deletion.
I would agree with this. Could I make a small suggestion? How about for
boards that are going to be removed, someone at least tries to build a
kernel for it, if it works then tag CVS as such for that board. If not,
blow it away. This allows someone who possibly has an interest later on
to at least be able to pull the last known working snapshot for their
board. Just a thought.

-Steve

---

From: Pete Popov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 08:57:33 -0700

> Do you get any support from AMD?

As always.

> Any plans to support MAE?

Don't know yet; I'll let you know as soon as I know.

Pete

---

From: Sylvain Munaut <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:35:30 +0200

> if I remove them to reduce the clutter?

Theses files were of some help when bringing up new board based on thos
processors.

    Sylvain

---

From: Pete Popov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:51:04 -0700

> Theses files were of some help when bringing up new board based on thos

Why not use the Db1x equivalent? If you have an au1000 based board, you
should probably base your port on the db1000 board, not the pb1000
anyway.

I didn't get a clear answer on whether it's ok to remove those boards
but I guess that's normal. The problem with keeping boards around that
very few people are interested in is that no one maintains them, the
code is broken, and quite honestly I think it creates confusion for
developers that have a custom board based on, let's say, the Au1500.
Unless that developer knows that the pb1000 code is broken, how would he
know to base his code on the db1000 instead of the pb1000? If the
support for these boards is broken now, it will only get worst. Anytime
someone makes mods to supported boards, it's bound to break something in
the already unsupported ones and make that code even more unusable.

Pete