> 
> >> 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...

R.