On Friday, August 06, 2010 20:01:45 Reinhard Meyer wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> If, after considering my comments above, you still think you really need > >> a custodian for AT91, I am game for it. > > > > go for it > > considering that both AVR32 and AT91 share most of the peripheral hardware > building blocks, and therefore share the drivers, it seems to make sense to > have an atmel custodian tree instead of avr32 and at91. Each change to a > shared > driver must (at least with MAKEALL) be checked for both architectures and > adding it to both trees would make life unnecessary complicated...
yes, but the cores are going to be radically different. so i imagine you'd be fine with the peripheral drivers, but not the avr32 core. it's your time though of course. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
