From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3F697A17.3090909@imc-berlin.de>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:25:43 +0200
From: Steven Scholz <steven.scholz@imc-berlin.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Linuxppc-Embedded <linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org>
Subject: Re: Problems w/  CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MPC8xx_IDE
References: <3F656CFC.1050706@imc-berlin.de> <3F65A2FD.3010904@imc-berlin.de> <1063627208.14615.21.camel@trantor.staff.proxad.net> <3F65B091.1020802@imc-berlin.de> <20030915151648.GD29517@ip68-0-152-218.tc.ph.cox.net> <3F66CCFD.3040301@imc-berlin.de> <20030917150845.GB14509@ip68-0-152-218.tc.ph.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <20030917150845.GB14509@ip68-0-152-218.tc.ph.cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org
List-Id: <linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org>


Tom,

>>>>So which is the BK tree to use:
>>>>linuxppc_2_4_devel or linuxppc-2.4 ???
>
> Aside from possible changes to match upstream subsystem rewrites (such
> as IDE) there hasn't been any changes in linuxppc-2.4 specific to 8xx
> that didn't happen in 2_4_devel.
>
>>http://www.penguinppc.org/dev/kernel.shtml calls linuxppc_2_4_devel the
>>"old PPC development tree" !?
>
> That's correct.  It's becoming more of a pain to maintain or own set of
> trees to track 2.4 when Marcelo uses BK as well.

I suppose we need both trees. Otherwise you would have got rid of one. Right? :o)

Steven


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/