From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from jdl.com (jdl.com [66.118.10.122]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9D9367A3F for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2006 01:37:03 +1000 (EST) To: Guennadi Liakhovetski Subject: Re: ppc vs. powerpc status update, please In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 01 Jul 2006 12:20:12 +0200." References: Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:36:55 -0500 From: Jon Loeliger Message-Id: Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , So, like, the other day Guennadi Liakhovetski mumbled: > What's the _current_ trend with those 2 archs, specifically,respecting > embedded boards, the make ARCH=powerpc ***_defconfig for a board under ppc > "just should work" doesn't seem to hold and I didn't find any provisions > for that. (I read in an earlier post it "should"). Are ppc platforms still > supposed to migrate to under powerpc? I am not quite clear where to put > all board-specific stuff then, in that post it was told "you almost don't > need anything, just use device tree and a correct CPU support, and put > your specific _drivers_ somewhere". How is it in reality? The trend is still happening. Things should be migrated out of arch/ppc and into arch/powerpc. For example, I just introduced a new 86xx board port only under arch/powerpc. Please feel free to help migrate support into arch/powerpc! jdl