On 16 Feb 2001, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:

> bjh21@netbsd.org (Ben Harris) writes:
> > They're more equivalent to the IOMD or Footbridge, whose support
> > code would presumably live in the riscpc and cats directories
> > respectively.
> 
> IOMD may be RPC-specific, but Footbridge support, in a correct world,
> shouldn't be CATS specific.
> 
> There are many more ARM boards in existance than the CATS that use
> Footbridge, eh?

Yes, but are they otherwise sufficiently different from the CATS as to
justify their own MACHINE?

> SA11x0 on-chip periph support is, in effect, a standard set of
> hardware wrapped around a core.  Footbridge is a standard chip sitting
> right next to a core.
> 
> Both should be supported via common arch-dependent code, _not_ in
> machine-type-specific code.

That sounds reasonable, but it does tend towards recreating quite a lot of
sys/arch/arm32 (and sys/arch/arm26 for that matter) under
sys/arch/arm.  This may not be a bad thing.

-- 
Ben Harris                                                   <bjh21@netbsd.org>
Portmaster, NetBSD/arm26               <URL:http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/arm26/>