Re: [PATCH 00/12] arm64: Remove unused big-endian support
Will Deacon <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <aoQ1D9xT8BZ28KLD@willie-the-truck> |
On Sun, Aug 16, 2026 at 12:15:44PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sun, Aug 16, 2026, at 11:47, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 05:11:47PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2026, at 16:01, Will Deacon wrote: > >> > >> My suggestions there was to possibly remove arm32 big-endian mode at > >> the same time as on arm64, but that does feel a little rushed if > >> ixp4xx only has one release of supporting both, and removing be8 > >> but leaving be32 for a little while longer is probably not worth it. > > > > Yeah, maybe give it another LTS on the arm32 side? I think arm64 going > > first is ok, though. > > Right, one more LTS for 32-bit is probably good. We'll see how the > OpenWRT/ixp4xx conversion goes for users. > > My feeling so far is that running ixp4xx in LE mode is probably fine > (there may still be driver bugs), but flashing a running system > from one mode to the other is a bit risky and BE32 mode makes this > more confusing the BE8. > > >> > I've broken this down into fairly coarse chunks, as it seemed a lot > >> > easier to manage than one giant patch (even with the Kconfig being > >> > effectively disabled already) and not all of it is just mindless > >> > deletion. Despite that, I'm anticipating the whole thing going via the > >> > arm64 tree. > >> > >> I would have done even larger patches, this does already feel fairly > >> fine-grained to me ;-). I had a look at the individual patches to make > >> sure this all makes sense, and I found nothing wrong here. > > > > If it was just a sed script or similar, I think I'd would've done a giant > > patch, but some of it is surprisingly error-prone (e.g. when you have a > > file with a load of '#ifdef CPU_BIG_ENDIAN' and then an '#ifndef > > CPU_BIG_ENDIAN' hiding in the middle of it all). > > Yes, definitely, I've found out the hard way during other feature > removal before. > > scripts/unifdef.c should be able to help with this, but I never > remember that this is a thing. I didn't even know about that! I'll see if it spots anything I missed... Will