Exactly. :) It's just that someone has to write/code that kind of support. I've started work on that actually, but it's only slowly evolving due to other ARM and non-ARM related projects I'm also working on.
I'm still sorting out how to properly do this. I guess I'll just need to try a few things I have in my head and see how they evolve. \Patrick Am 16.08.2013 um 23:26 schrieb Rob Sciuk <r...@controlq.com>: > On Fri, 16 Aug 2013, Patrick Wildt wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 23:18:19 +0200 >> From: Patrick Wildt <m...@patrick-wildt.de> >> To: Diana Eichert <deich...@wrench.com> >> Cc: arm@openbsd.org >> Subject: Re: any support for Boundary Nitrogen6x? >> Hello Diana, >> >> I didn't get much resonance for that board, so I didn't pursue >> getting that arch into the tree. First, I'd like to have a generic >> ARM arch, so that you don't have to have an arch for every >> SoC out there. > > Isn't that what device trees are for? For embedded SoC's, the approach of > describing the SoC registers, peripherals, clocks, memory and various in a > device independant manner would be the way to proceed, no?? > > Cheers, > Rob. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-= > Robert S. Sciuk http://www.controlq.com 259 Simcoe St. > S. > Control-Q Research tel: 905.706.1354 Oshawa, Ont. > r...@controlq.com Canada, L1H 4H3
