From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3AA6F769.E9EE5931@mvista.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:07:21 -0500
From: Dan Malek <dan@mvista.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mgreer@mvista.com
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org
Subject: Re: Sandpoint added to 2_5 tree
References: <3AA4293B.8633F08F@mvista.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org
List-Id: <linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org>


"Mark A. Greer" wrote:
>
> For those of you with sandpoints, there has been sandpoint support
> pushed out into the 2_5 tree.  It requires the patch at:
> ftp://ftp.mvista.com/pub/Area51/sandpoint/sp_patch_2_5

This is a "don't touch yourself", right?  Shouldn't this be generally
useful (or required)?  Why don't other architectures have this
problem and can we create a generic solution (i.e. we shouldn't have
to hard-code the device number)?

Thanks.

	-- Dan

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