Hi Ken,

On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Ken Seefried wrote:
> Chris Gilbert writes:
> > However I believe that arm hardware may have a lot more
> > in common than other platforms, especially arm26 and arm32 on the RISC-OS
> > running systems.

What about PCI/ISA ? They have that too you know .... that makes stuff
look quite similar to `intel PC' machines with all their problems.

> That seems to assume (and I have no wish to put words in anyones
> mouth) that most NetBSD+ARM users are running a RISC-OS type machine.
> I don't know if that is true.  I, for one, am working with ARM7 &
> StrongARM class processors in embedded systems (i.e. they don't look
> anything like a RISC-OS machine).  I suspect that with the vast
> profusion of ARM6, ARM7 & StrongARM based devices out there, that the
> real future of the NetBSD/ARM port ultimately lies there.

Well yeah in a way yes, but don't forget the EBSA and CATS :) ... There
are machines supported in the tree that dont resemble ANYTHING with the
Acorn derived RISC OS machines. Furthermore i know of a few new `rocking'
machines that are about to be produced witch also feature StrongARM /
Xscale.

> Personally, I find the current fad to divert effort to merge support for
> arm26 interesting & quaint, but ultimately (for me) irrelevant.  Before one
> reads too much into that, I *strongly* encourage continued support for the
> old platforms.  I've got NetBSD/VAX on a VS3100m40, after all.

Hmmm... well dunno what to say about that really.... but it only states
that arm26 binaries and arm32 binaries can run on on both machines; arm32
will run arm26 machines when a generic ARM has been selected during
compile time (standard option?) , tailored StrongARM binaries won't run on
arm26....

But the right person to ask this is Ben Harris for he's working on the
toolset right now....

> Just a thought, but perhaps there needs to be an arm/riscos (or some
> such)  branch for older platforms (are there any non-Acorn arm26
> platforms other than the oddball arm26 eval board that I saw on eBay a
> few months back?), and an arm32 branch for the more modern stuff (say,
> non-RISC-OS ARM6 and above).  This would be much like the various (6,
> at least) Motorola 68K or MIPS (5, I think) NetBSD ports that rely
> heavily on one another for their core kernel functionality (MMU, FP,
> etc.) and toolchain, but don't make comprimises on peripheral support
> for their given target.  Hell...there are currently 4 branches for the
> Hitachi Super-H processor!

Hmm... if you want to make a devision, then a subdirectory
sys/arm32/riscos would be better with all podule, memc and vidc
directories like Mark Brinicombe once suggested but AFAIK never
implemented.

Another subdivision could be a StrongARM/Xscale branch but that could give
trouble with the other machines that support both architectures :( and you
get wierd interdependences and conflicts. Or are you REALLY thinking of
branching off a whole new port? with hardly any subconnections?

> I wouldn't want things to get this fragmented, however.  I don't think
> there are enough folks to support more than two branches.

Sure.... I allready notice this with arm26 and arm32 ... it gets too
fragmented otherwise ....

Cheers,
Reinoud