> On Jun 24, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Jeff Rizzo <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 6/24/15 7:13 AM, matthew green wrote: >> David Holland writes: >>> >>> I think keeping evb* for boards makes sense, though. >> i dunno. >> >> i don't see what it adds. in particular, "evb" means evaluation >> board, and there are heaps of things in evb* that are *not* >> evaluation boards, but stuff that might have once been once. >> >> i wish we'd just collapse as much as possible back to plain old >> MACHINE=MACHINE_ARCH=whatever. i just don't see any value or >> validity in "evb". is ERLITE an evaluation board? what about >> the RPI or CUBIE* systems? they come pretty complete AFAICT, >> designed as end-user systems, not what we used to consider as >> being "evalation boards". >> >> > > I agree that evb* is confusing and increasingly meaningless and would like to > see us transition away from it.
I contend that moving to sys/arch/<cpu> is incorrect which there are multiple MACHINE values for that CPU. sys/tem/mips (haha!) or sys/platform/mips (yuk) or sys/arch/<cpu>sys or something better.
