Skip to content

Conversation

@lyakh
Copy link
Collaborator

@lyakh lyakh commented Jan 27, 2023

No description provided.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can we also remove hsw please? It was never supported...

Copy link
Member

@plbossart plbossart Jan 27, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

and remove bdw as well btw.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

skl kbl are also questionable now that I read the whole line

@lyakh
Copy link
Collaborator Author

lyakh commented Jan 27, 2023

@plbossart this is just the first step, more to come

@kv2019i kv2019i added this to the v2.5 milestone Jan 27, 2023
@fredoh9
Copy link
Contributor

fredoh9 commented Jan 27, 2023

Thank you for the update. Yesterday I updated SOF Docker image, every platform has 15-20min build time. It will save the build time a lot.

@marc-hb
Copy link
Collaborator

marc-hb commented Jan 27, 2023

Thank you for the update. Yesterday I updated SOF Docker image, every platform has 15-20min build time. It will save the build time a lot.

You're talking about the toolchains, right?

installer/GNUmakefile has always been building all platforms in parallel in a couple minutes on my not very fast workstations.

@lyakh
Copy link
Collaborator Author

lyakh commented Jan 30, 2023

There are some scripts / tests that don't contain Intel platforms newer than cAVS2.0, i.e. after we complete legacy clean up they won't contain any Intel hardware. Do we need those scripts or are they deprecated? Those that I've found are:

  • scripts/qemu-check.sh
  • scripts/docker_build/sof_builder/Dockerfile
  • tools/fuzzer

Then there's the tone generator, the test for which is configured for Baytrail

  • tools/test/topology/test-tone-playback.m4

And one more test set is using an Apollo Lake configuration

  • tools/test/topology

@lyakh lyakh force-pushed the legacy branch 4 times, most recently from 4f3e69f to f200b67 Compare January 31, 2023 15:34
@lyakh
Copy link
Collaborator Author

lyakh commented Jan 31, 2023

some statistics:

sof$ git diff HEAD~6 --stat | grep "files changed"
 342 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 40092 deletions(-)

@lyakh
Copy link
Collaborator Author

lyakh commented Jan 31, 2023

"merge commit" only to resolve a conflict to run CI jobs, will be rebased properly before upstreaming of course

@lyakh lyakh force-pushed the legacy branch 2 times, most recently from 67280b1 to 05f0dda Compare January 31, 2023 16:15
@lyakh lyakh marked this pull request as ready for review January 31, 2023 16:24
@lyakh lyakh changed the title [WiP] Remove legacy platforms Remove legacy platforms Jan 31, 2023
Copy link
Collaborator

@kv2019i kv2019i left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wow, that is a thorough job (and a lot to review). A few minor notes. As a generic comment, I'd like to see a "supported in stable-v2.2" series comment in all the commits to give some more hints on what this is about.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would be good to add a mention that these platforms will be supported in the stable-v2.2 branch.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wonder if we could start with one platform and get the merged. This is getting bewildering to review. Here it seems we are adding back support in middle of the series.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's a comment. It's true, I wanted to move it back to not remove them in the first place, but forgot. It has a comment in line 26 that these are the platforms kept in 2.3, so no reason to remove them

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can see why you are doing this, but this is bumping up the review effort. I'm mentally scanning for changes that only cover platforms, so this kind of stuff jumps out.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+1

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it is related to this patch - it removes "sue" ;-) Obviously, that's why I hit this and other typos fixed in this PR, personally I'd keep these changes - they are tiny and obvious comments, but can trivially be extracted too...

.travis.yml Outdated
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

After whole series applied, "icl" is still left here.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Don't touch .travis.yml, it has not been used since we moved to Github Actions. There's another PR to finalize the transfer to Github Actions and remove it.

@marc-hb
Copy link
Collaborator

marc-hb commented Jan 31, 2023

I wonder if we could start with one platform and get the merged. This is getting bewildering to review.

Agree 200%, it's hard to merely scroll up and down. Focus on one or two platforms to set a template, ease the review pain and give all various CIs time to adjust: they should be able to remove all deprecated platforms with a small number of changed lines. Most of this has been done already.

After the first removal is merged and CI back to normal then removing all the other ones should be easy and require barely any review.

@lyakh
Copy link
Collaborator Author

lyakh commented Feb 1, 2023

I wonder if we could start with one platform and get the merged. This is getting bewildering to review.

Agree 200%, it's hard to merely scroll up and down. Focus on one or two platforms to set a template, ease the review pain and give all various CIs time to adjust: they should be able to remove all deprecated platforms with a small number of changed lines. Most of this has been done already.

After the first removal is merged and CI back to normal then removing all the other ones should be easy and require barely any review.

we can merge them individually, sure, but that won't make them or the review effort smaller. To avoid redundant reviewing, if after reviewing one of them you notice something that you think is likely to repeat in other patches you can just comment that and stop reviewing. But really, there isn't much to review here. Most of these changes are removing complete files and directories.

@marc-hb
Copy link
Collaborator

marc-hb commented Feb 1, 2023

we can merge them individually, sure, but that won't make them or the review effort smaller.

Not each platform individually. Just one platform first, properly reviewed thanks to a reasonable size and nothing off-topic, then well tested in all CIs over a few days after merge.

Then mass duplication to all the other platforms at once in a giant PR that is barely looked at and rubber-stamped.

@lgirdwood lgirdwood changed the title Remove legacy platforms Remove legacy Intel platforms Feb 2, 2023
@lgirdwood
Copy link
Member

@lyakh can we make this PR byt/cht only as we can see impact of the merge on CI and adjust one by one.

@lyakh
Copy link
Collaborator Author

lyakh commented Feb 3, 2023

@lyakh can we make this PR byt/cht only as we can see impact of the merge on CI and adjust one by one.

@lgirdwood sure, I'll update it

@lyakh lyakh marked this pull request as draft February 7, 2023 16:04
@lyakh lyakh marked this pull request as ready for review February 9, 2023 16:00
@lgirdwood
Copy link
Member

@lyakh its probably a lot easier to split this PR up into one PR per patch above for review and merging and do one by one.

@lyakh lyakh marked this pull request as draft February 13, 2023 13:26
@lyakh
Copy link
Collaborator Author

lyakh commented Feb 13, 2023

@lyakh its probably a lot easier to split this PR up into one PR per patch above for review and merging and do one by one.

@lgirdwood #7080

Remove all support for Sue Creek platforms, it isn't supported any
more.

Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <guennadi.liakhovetski@linux.intel.com>
@lyakh lyakh marked this pull request as ready for review February 20, 2023 13:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants