From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 08:04:42 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Cort Dougan Cc: Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Support for Arctic platform (405LP based) Message-ID: <20021216150442.GJ6095@opus.bloom.county> References: <20021213043628.GI21319@zax.zax> <20021212215126.V23952@duath.fsmlabs.com> <20021213151808.GI19456@opus.bloom.county> <20021215121526.M30941@duath.fsmlabs.com> <15869.5023.549830.146265@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20021215174120.E30568@duath.fsmlabs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20021215174120.E30568@duath.fsmlabs.com> Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: 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/