Hello, I wrote:
Either way, the lack of a complete proposal (not necessarily
in the form of patches) makes it hard to get anywhere with
such OMAP-L1xx discussions...
I think I've expressed it clear enough: common shared code is
to be moved to plat-davinci/ and OMAP-L1x support is to be
added into new mach- directory.
And yet Kevin felt that was missing details (not complete)...
While that sounds plausible to me at this point, it's also
clear that the missing details could make a big difference.
Let us be more clear. What exactly details are needed?
The technical justification for a new mach- + plat- directory. In
particular, justification for why extending current code in existing
mach-davinci cannot work.
I guess it can. Pigs can fly too, given enough thrust.
The question is who needs flying pigs. Or who actually needs OMAP
(even if only by the name) code in mach-davinci/ (while it ensues
changing from uImage to zImage, from your earlier mail)...
To me these are hardly justification for a new mach directory. I see
relatively simple solutions for these in the current framework.
I don't see an acceptable solution to the cp_intc issue -- unless
you want to live with #ifdef'ery... autodetection is certainly *not*
an option.
Though we can add a variable to be checked in entry-macro.S... bleh.
WBR, Sergei
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
