From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Frysinger Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 20:20:28 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] ATMEL Custodians == /dev/null ?? In-Reply-To: <4C5CA269.8010401@emk-elektronik.de> References: <4C50E124.2000807@emk-elektronik.de> <201008051216.14165.vapier@gentoo.org> <4C5CA269.8010401@emk-elektronik.de> Message-ID: <201008062020.29921.vapier@gentoo.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Friday, August 06, 2010 20:01:45 Reinhard Meyer wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> If, after considering my comments above, you still think you really need > >> a custodian for AT91, I am game for it. > > > > go for it > > considering that both AVR32 and AT91 share most of the peripheral hardware > building blocks, and therefore share the drivers, it seems to make sense to > have an atmel custodian tree instead of avr32 and at91. Each change to a > shared > driver must (at least with MAKEALL) be checked for both architectures and > adding it to both trees would make life unnecessary complicated... yes, but the cores are going to be radically different. so i imagine you'd be fine with the peripheral drivers, but not the avr32 core. it's your time though of course. -mike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20100806/1cb5b623/attachment.pgp