From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.ebshome.net (gate.ebshome.net [64.81.67.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (Client CN "gate.ebshome.net", Issuer "gate.ebshome.net" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96FB567A6F for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 04:07:46 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:07:43 -0700 From: Eugene Surovegin To: Matt Porter Subject: Re: PPC 405GPr support in linux 2.4.32 Message-ID: <20060427180743.GB11206@gate.ebshome.net> References: <20060426163540.H16236@cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20060426163540.H16236@cox.net> Cc: Stephen Williams , linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 04:35:40PM -0700, Matt Porter wrote: > linuxppc-2.4 tree to linux-2.4. Oh, and Marcelo didn't want > to take "new stuff" into linux-2.4 at that time either. > > There's still rsync://source.mvista.com/linuxppc-2.4 available with > the 405gpr/sycamore support. There are bigger problems with 4xx support in 2.4 mainline than just missing some chips support. Some parts which are already in 2.4 (e.g. ethernet driver) are of non-production quality. I can imagine Marcelo agreeing to commit 405GPr/405EP support as this change shouldn't break anything, but this will not make 2.4 support really useful for real world deployments. I think we are stuck with maintaining our own 2.4 trees with backports from 2.6. This is what I do myself of all our products (and yeah, diff between stock 2.4.32 and my internal version has already grown quite big to be acceptable for 2.4 inclusion). -- Eugene