On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 02:59:48PM -0600, Chris Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > You should work with the official trees, i. e. linuxppc-2.4 or
> > linuxppc-2.5.
>
> Unless I made some mistake in cloning the linuxppc-2.{4,5} trees from
> ppc.bkbits.net, (which is entirely possible as I'm a BK newbie), there
> appears to be a fair amount of processor- and platform-specific stuff
> in the Denx linuxppc_2_4_devel CVS tree which does not appear in the
> ppc.bkbits.net BK trees (e.g. arch/ppc/5xxx_io/... ).
>
> Is the Denx CVS tree "authoritative" with regard to those extras? Is
> there any expectation that those bits found only in the Denx CVS tree
> will eventually find their way into the ppc.bkbits.net tree(s)? (Or
> some other, more appropriate tree(s)? If so, which?)
For 2.4? Denx will probably be the "authoritative" tree. For 2.6 I am
hopeful that something can be worked out.
--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
