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.
Or we could clone the pig, call it an OMAP-P1x, and teach it to fly ;)
OMAP-L1x is not a clone, don't be delusional. :-)
Oops, sorry, I used the wrong word -- I meant illlusion, not delusion.
WBR, Sergei
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
