From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:53:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>
To: Mark Chambers <markc@mail.com>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	Embedded Linux PPC list <linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org>
Subject: Re: 2.4 versus 2.6 patches
In-Reply-To: <00ab01c47322$73784280$0301a8c0@chuck2>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0407261152240.23086@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20040726134847.84704.qmail@web15214.mail.bjs.yahoo.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407261021120.6190@localhost.localdomain>
 <00ab01c47322$73784280$0301a8c0@chuck2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org
List-Id: <linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org>


On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Mark Chambers wrote:

>> If 2.4 works already for you, by all means use it -- but if you're
>> doing any new development, or you _really_ want people to care when
>> you find bugs, it really ought to be 2.6.

> Well, this is a surprise to me.  Does the stock 2.6 even compile on
> 8xx yet, or are you talking about 8xxx and/or IBM?

well, the linuxppc-2.5 bk pull from bkbits.net compiles and boots on
our 8xx board.  although i'm still working on relocating SMC1 to allow
ethernet on SCC3.  but other than that, sure, it builds and boots.

rday

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