Re: [PATCH v1] sh: boards: fix CEU buffer size passed to dma_declare_coherent_memory()

On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 01:38:25PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-07-25 at 14:09 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 07:50:56AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2023-07-24 at 20:43 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > arch/sh is being maintained again, so it's save to keep these boards. At some point, we're
> > > > > going to convert the architecture to using Device Trees which should reduce the maintenance
> > > > > burden anyways.
> > > > 
> > > > Keeping the architecture is fine for newer systems, but is anyone really
> > > > maintaining the Renesas SH board ?
> > > 
> > > I own Renesas evaluation boards, including SH7785LCR-based and
> > > SH7724-based boards.
> > 
> > Will you have time to port them to DT, or would you rather focus on
> > J-core systems ? Do those boards still boot a mainline kernel ?
> > 
> > Dropping Renesas SH board files doesn't preclude anyone from moving them
> > to DT, all the information will remain in the git history. Unless you
> > plan to move to DT in a reasonably near future, I think dropping support
> > for the CEU at least, if not the whole board files, could be a good
> > option.
> 
> I'm not sure why you are trying to convince me to kill off support for SuperH
> boards. I have just stepped up maintenance of arch/sh to keep SuperH hardware
> supported in the kernel because I have been a maintainer of Debian's SuperH
> port for several years now.

If you're willing to maintain the SuperH support, that's nice :-) I'm
not concerned about the arch side, but I'd like to drop the non-DT
support in corresponding drivers in DRM and V4L2.

> There is also a small community of SuperH enthusiasts now hacking on the kernel
> which is coming together for discussion in #linux-sh on libera IRC.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart