Subject: Re: New ARM port to the Integrator development board
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Richard Earnshaw <email@example.com>
Date: 10/22/2001 11:37:06
> >> At 05:58 PM 10/20/2001 +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >> >Unless anyone has any specific objections to the name, I propose to commit
> >> >the code under the port name "integrator" over the next few days.
> >> If this is an evaluation board, it should go under evbarm/integrator.
> >Strictly speaking its a development board, but who's counting?
> >I'll see if I can merge the two together.
> I thought that the plan was to go for more ports instead of trying to
> merge the code for unrelated systems.
> Robert Swindells
Well it's certainly true that there won't be a GENERIC kernel that can
support both the existing evbarm code and the Integrator; I guess the
question is whether we really want to go to the extreme of having lots of
ports to evaluation/development boards lying around in the arch directory.
It's time for a judgement call...