> 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 
> from? 8)

It's ARM's principal development board.  Yes it's selling -- ARM sells it.

http://www.arm.com/devtools.ns4/iwpList113/F025F4F0A97DB15D802569190038F93F?OpenDocument&style=Dev_Tools

R.