From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: Chris Clark Cc: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Relationship between bk libuxppc-2.4 and denx linuxppc_2_4_devel From: Wolfgang Denk Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:59:48 MDT." Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:58:23 +0200 Message-Id: <20040611215828.C8735C109F@atlas.denx.de> Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: In message you wrote: > > 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/... ). Your finding is correct. > Is the Denx CVS tree "authoritative" with regard to those extras? Is No, not at all. It's just what we're doing here at DENX. > 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?) I gave up submitting patches - probably my communication skills are inadequate. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd@denx.de Testing can show the presense of bugs, but not their absence. -- Edsger Dijkstra ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/