From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from amsfep20-int.chello.nl (amsfep20-int.chello.nl [213.46.243.18]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099F467A71 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:41:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.0.27] (really [80.216.175.121]) by amsfep20-int.chello.nl (InterMail vM.6.01.04.01 201-2131-118-101-20041129) with ESMTP id <20050303114119.HQRM1891.amsfep20-int.chello.nl@[192.168.0.27]> for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 12:41:19 +0100 Message-ID: <4226F904.5010104@bitsim.se> Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:46:12 +0100 From: Jakob Viketoft MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linux PPC Embedded list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Subject: Adding machine types to the kernel tree... List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi! Are there any certain policys or religious issues about adding machine types to the (ppc40x) kernel tree, and who's responsible for kicking stuff like this up the main tree? Specifically, I would like to replace the PowerPC405 support for the Xilinx ML 300 (development board) with generic Xilinx Virtex-II Pro and Virtex4 support (FPGAs). In my opinion, the end target isn't the development boards, but the custom configuration it all will run on in the end, and so things would benefit from a more general support. Do anyone have any insightful views/opinions on this or comments of any kind? Clearly, there seem to be some demand for this lately according to traffic on the list... Cheers! /Jakob