On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 00:01:00 MST, "Jesse Off" wrote:
> > christos@zoulas.com (Christos Zoulas) writes:
> >
> >> >I'm wondering why it's sys/arch/tsarm and not sys/arch/evbarm/tsarm or
> >> >sys/arch/evbarm/ts7200.
> >>
> >> I think that I agree with you and it should be sys/arch/evbarm/tsarm or
> >> sys/arch/evbarm/ts7200. Which one depends if we expect the code to
> >> handle
> >> more than 7200 model or not.
> >
> > evbarm/tsarm is kind of redundant. evbarm/ts7200 is better; supporting
> > a 7210 or 7205 or whatever in ts7200 wouldn't be so bad, but if we
> > expect that to happen then evbarm/ts72xx might be best.
> 
> Yes, there will be more ARM based SBC's and although I don't know what
> they all will be numbered, I am certain they will always be 7xxx for ones
> based on the Cirrus Logic family.  There will be another board released in
> a month called the TS-7250, and maybe a TS-7300 sometime 2005.  We may
> eventually do a design using xscales too.
> 
> I am still feel uneasy about evbarm.  What are the traits that would
> constitute an evbarm that aren't in NetBSD/shark, NetBSD/cats, and
> NetBSD/iyonix?  I'm guessing I couldn't just plop the files I've got in
> evbarm/tsarm without rewriting some things?  Thats mostly what I'm uneasy
> about; I have no problem renaming if thats the consensus, but I am a bit
> lazy about doing any rework on a whim :-)

Iyonix, Shark, Netwinder and Cats are all pretty much complete systems 
(PC's if you wish, except for the different CPU).  They have video, 
keyboard, mouse, disk and in most cases PCI/ISA slots as standard.  They 
are also generally supplied in boxes with power supplies and all the other 
necessary baggage for you to plug them in and use them.

I don't know anything about the board you've done a port for, but if it 
fits the above criteria, then I'd suggest it warrants a 'port' of its own. 
 If not, then it probably belongs as a sub-port of evbarm.

R.