From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Jackson Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:07:25 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [BR-AVR32] [PATCH] Support for new MIMC200 board In-Reply-To: <20081007104345.59bacec2@hcegtvedt> References: <48EA05EB.7020807@mimc.co.uk> <20081007074128.12613e2c@hcegtvedt> <48EB1EDF.6070209@mimc.co.uk> <20081007104345.59bacec2@hcegtvedt> Message-ID: <48EB26CD.4010003@mimc.co.uk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote: > You must split up your patch, it contains far more than just a new > board. Each patch should only add/change one feature in Buildroot. > > I would also recommend that you get all the kernel and U-Boot stuff > upstream first, and then go for the Buildroot stuff. Ho, hum. I was kinda hoping to put that off ... too lazy, too many other things to do !!. But I guess I just need to buckle down and get it sorted. In fact the u-boot stuff *is* already upstream ... the u-boot patch is a bit of a hang over. Oops. the linux stuff was a bit of a sticking point ... Atmel's AVR32 patches are all based on 2.6.25.10. But I'm guessing that if I submit my new RTC support code won't it only be added to the latest kernels ? How can I submit my RTC code *and* still use 2.6.25.10 ? I know I could use Haavard's latest linux (2.6.27.??), but then that's moving further away from the buildroot "all-in-one" principal !?! Any ideas ? >>> Is the patch based on the latest uclibc.org repo or Buildroot for >>> AVR32 release (v2.2.0)? >> The latest svn (actually r23594). > > Then it is better if you post it to uclibc.org mailing list, I import > stuff from uclibc.org, so eventually it will end up in my fork() as > well. Okay ... will do. Thanks for the feedback. Mark