Re: [PATCH 2/2] MAINTAINERS: remove linux-sh list from non-arch/sh sections

[Rich Felker]

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 10:01:25AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Dropping linux-sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx from portions of the MAINTAINERS file as
> > you suggest would essentially leave the Renesas ARM work without a mailing
> > list or patchwork instance. Both of which are actively used for that work..
> >
> > Off-hand I can think of three solutions to this problem:
> >
> > 1. Live with the noise
> > 2. Establish a new list (and possibly patchwork instance) for the SH work..
> > 3. Establish a new list and patchwork instance for the ARM work.
> 
> Personally, I'd go for option 1.
> I would even like to propose H8/300 to join, as they share IP cores, too
> (m32r doesn't, AFAIK).
> 
> Many old ARM/SH-Mobile SoCs look like SH SoCs with an ARM CPU core bolted on.
> Recent Renesas ARM SoCs still share many IP cores with older SH SoCs; most of
> them even have a secondary SH4 CPU core. Using the SH4 CPU core could be useful
> for doing SH4 work, until J4 becomes mainstream (cfr. old prototype in
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-sh/msg07188.html).
> Probably the Jx series won't share IP cores with SH/ARM, but as arch/sh/
> maintainers you have to care about older Renesas SH platforms, too.
> 
> For patchwork, that would mean some more delegation needs to be put in place.
> 
> So far my 0.05â...

Is that actually the case? I can't find any current support in the
kernel for running on these SH4 cores, and I was under the impression
that they were being phased out, if not already gone. And the bulk of
the driver-related discussion I've seen on linux-sh over the past year
does not seem to be related to hardware that's present/usable on
boards where you can run Linux/SH. If this is incorrect, I'd like to
hear some views on how/why such hardware is relevant to arch/sh.

Rich