Dear =?iso-8859-1?Q?Andreas_Bie=DFmann?=, In message <[email protected]> you wrote: > > If one can fix some remaining atmel (or arm in general) boards they > should become the new maintainer.
Agred - assuming they agree, too. > 3. How should we treat at91rm9200 boards which are not transformed to > at91. I plan to get the at91rm9200 device drivers (at91rm9200_usart, > emac) merged with at91 implementation. When we do this transition (will > last til end of this year at least; not before 2011.03/maybe 2011.06) we > could completely delete the deprecated drivers. Thus we break at91rm9200 > boards completely (which may not working at all due to new arm > relocation stuff ... but who knows/test this/is responsible for?). > Should we write down/propagate a time schedule for this transition as it > is done for arm relocation? Should we drop those possible not working > boards in general? If we know for sure that a board is broken, and nobody cares about it we shoul remove it. This is simple to find out if a board does not compile, but I guess there are a number of boards that are broken in more subtle ways. If you are aware of any such cases, please let me know or submit a patch to remove them. U-Boot has sometimes been critized to carry old jetsam for too long, thus preventing any reasonable innovation. Let's prove these guys wrong... Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: [email protected] I mean, I . . . think to understand you, I just don't know what you are saying ... - Terry Pratchett, _Soul Music_ _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
