[U-Boot] is it worth enhancing cmd_immap.c to handle 83xx?

[U-Boot] is it worth enhancing cmd_immap.c to handle 83xx?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  as i'm currently messing with MPC8360e-based board, is there any
value in submitting a patch so that cmd_immap.c can handle 83xx? it
seems pretty straightforward. i'm also working on the politics of
being allowed to submit a patch to deal with an MPC8360e-based system
currently being ported to linux so that that cmd_immap.c enhancement
would have actual value.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

[U-Boot] is it worth enhancing cmd_immap.c to handle 83xx?

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 06:13:45AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

>   as i'm currently messing with MPC8360e-based board, is there any
> value in submitting a patch so that cmd_immap.c can handle 83xx? it
> seems pretty straightforward. i'm also working on the politics of
> being allowed to submit a patch to deal with an MPC8360e-based system
> currently being ported to linux so that that cmd_immap.c enhancement
> would have actual value.

If you're able to mainline other useful things with MPC83xx yes,
otherwise, probably not.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20160114/7eb47e7d/attachment.sig>