From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:44:17 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Chris Clark Cc: Wolfgang Denk , linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Relationship between bk libuxppc-2.4 and denx linuxppc_2_4_devel Message-ID: <20040611214417.GC925@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <20040611073059.D13E8C109F@atlas.denx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:59:48PM -0600, Chris Clark wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > You should work with the official trees, i. e. linuxppc-2.4 or > > linuxppc-2.5. > > Unless I made some mistake in cloning the linuxppc-2.{4,5} trees from > ppc.bkbits.net, (which is entirely possible as I'm a BK newbie), there > appears to be a fair amount of processor- and platform-specific stuff > in the Denx linuxppc_2_4_devel CVS tree which does not appear in the > ppc.bkbits.net BK trees (e.g. arch/ppc/5xxx_io/... ). > > Is the Denx CVS tree "authoritative" with regard to those extras? Is > there any expectation that those bits found only in the Denx CVS tree > will eventually find their way into the ppc.bkbits.net tree(s)? (Or > some other, more appropriate tree(s)? If so, which?) For 2.4? Denx will probably be the "authoritative" tree. For 2.6 I am hopeful that something can be worked out. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/