From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1L99Rh-00012E-Qq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:32:33 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1L99Rg-00011b-BI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:32:33 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35777 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L99Rg-00011Y-2a
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:32:32 -0500
Received: from rn-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.170.185]:49332)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <wmarketing3@gmail.com>) id 1L99Rf-00020Z-QB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:32:31 -0500
Received: by rn-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id i50so518851rne.11
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:32:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <fa04eb750812061832t75e82a5dmbd1854c66e291dce@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 20:32:30 -0600
From: "Prince Riley" <wmarketing3@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_69079_17413374.1228617150292"
Subject: [Qemu-devel] OMAP2 and OMAP3 support in QEMU
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

------=_Part_69079_17413374.1228617150292
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

> How good is OMAP2 and OMAP3 support in
> QEMU these days?

> However, we'd like to replace the versatile kernel (used for QEMU)
> with a kernel that runs on common hardware as well as QEMU, and OMAP
> is one possible candidate.  See

> http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2008/06/msg00075.html
> Looking at this message, my questions would be: are multi-omap kernels

> (omap2+omap3) possible now?

------=_Part_69079_17413374.1228617150292
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

<pre><font><font size="4">&gt; How good is OMAP2 and OMAP3 support in<br>&gt; QEMU these days?<br><br></font></font><font><font size="4">&gt; However, we&#39;d like to replace the versatile kernel (used for QEMU)<br>&gt; with a kernel that runs on common hardware as well as QEMU, and OMAP<br>
&gt; is one possible candidate.  See<br><br>&gt; <a rel="nofollow" href="http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2008/06/msg00075.html" target="_blank">http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2008/06/msg00075.html</a><br>&gt; Looking at this message, my questions would be: are multi-omap kernels<br>
<br>&gt; (omap2+omap3) possible now? <br></font></font><br></pre>

------=_Part_69079_17413374.1228617150292--