Re: Support for Arctic platform (405LP based)

[Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 05:41:20PM -0700, Cort Dougan wrote:

> } 4xx in particular is a problem because I'm not convinced about the
> } approach that has been taken for some of the 4xx infrastructure.  The
> } ocp stuff seems a lot more complicated than it needs to be, for
> } instance.  There is no particular reason that I can see why the 8xx
> } stuff in 2_4_devel shouldn't go to Marcelo for 2.4.21.
>
> How about a linuxppc_2_4 that is a child of Marcelo's.  Then a
> linuxppc_2_4_4xx (and what have you) that is a child of the linuxppc_2_4
> tree?  It would make integration much much easier.  Right now the
> diff between _2_4 and _2_4_devel seems to be non-monotonically increasing.
> I think it would be hard to arrest that growth without switching to a
> Macelo based tree.

I'm not sure how that would stop the growth of the '_devel' tree, it
would just split it up into 4xx, and everything else.  And my goal of
the new few weeks is to try and move everything that's not 4xx that I
can get my hands on to test into the _2_4 tree.  I'm not sure just how
much of that I'll actually be able to do, but I'm going to try.

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/