From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1G8TSX-0001WD-Vh
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 23:01:18 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1G8TSW-0001W1-K9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 23:01:17 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G8TSW-0001Vy-HX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 23:01:16 -0400
Received: from [65.74.133.4] (helo=mail.codesourcery.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1G8TVl-0005vF-He
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 23:04:37 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] State of TI OMAP board support?
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 04:01:17 +0100
References: <1935067809.20060730112614@gmail.com>
	<fb249edb0607300629t2f90bf93l1596f7c5347a168e@mail.gmail.com>
	<958928716.20060803052442@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <958928716.20060803052442@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200608030401.18161.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@gmail.com>
Cc: andrzej zaborowski <balrog@zabor.org>

> > I don't think it is considered for inclusion. Before it is merged I
> > would like to separate the generic OMAP code from board-related code
> > (the board I emulate is the Palm Tunsgten|E handheld), but I imagine
> > the QEMU maintainers won't like the way code is formatted and probably
> > many other things, hard to say.
>
>   I really hoped to get response from QEMU author/ARM emulation maintainer
> regarding these points. Paul, any comments? Would you be interested to
> add more CPUs/boards? Any suggestion regarding this? Maybe if it is
> expected that there may be many implementation and they won't fit into
> core distribution, to provide API for plugin development?

I've no objection to adding new boards/cpus[1].

However, unless I have some personal/commercial interest in that particular 
board it's up to the patch author(s) to get that support into a state where 
I'm happy merging it. If the original author thinks it needs cleanup before 
submission I'm inclined to believe them ;-)

All the normal guidelines for patch submission apply. i.e. follow coding 
conventions, split changes into logically separate patches, don't mix 
cleanups with new features, etc.

Paul

[1] As discussed previously on this list there are unresolved legal issues 
with emulating ARMv6/v7 cpus, however that's not relevant in this case.