Subject: Re: New ARM port to the Integrator development board
To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, Richard Earnshaw <email@example.com>
From: Chris Gilbert <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/23/2001 23:27:37
On Monday 22 October 2001 11:37 am, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > >> 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...
How prevalent is the board going to be? IE is it selling? (And if so where