On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 06:42:40PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Matt,
in message [off-list ref] you wrote:
quoted
It would be nice if you could work support for your silicon into
the de facto standard Linux/PPC community trees like the MPC85xx
folks are doing.
We tried. We really tried.
See the thread starting at
http://lists.linuxppc.org/linuxppc-dev/200311/msg00000.html
David even posted on this list to get feedback from the community.
But I haven't seen a single reply on the mailing lists.
So? Repost. I miss stuff the first time around a lot of times
myself [this is not to indicate that I would necessarily comment
on 5200 stuff, just an example].
Please don't blame _us_ that the 5xxx code was not accepted for the
public trees.
This is really not fair!!!
Fair? Of course the community isn't fair. It's fickle and often
concerned only with its own current projects. Persistence really
helps when one wants something to be in the trees. Frankly, I'm
surprised that this isn't a top priority for Freescale. Maintaining
code in the kernel.org trees is far more efficient than when it
bit rots in some other tree. It also makes the support for Freescale's
silicon available to a wider audience. I think that has got to be
high on their list.
Just to add fuel to the fire, I'll note that others are able to
appear on #mklinux and work out the issues in real-time with the
folks there. is often more desirable and productive. It's also often
the only way to get Paul's attention. Oh, and FWIW, the folks working
hard on 8xx and 85xx acceptance do manage to do this.
I'm glad I don't give up as easy. It took me a while to get core OCP/4xx
in linux-2.5. :)
-Matt
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 11:33:02AM -0700, Matt Porter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 06:42:40PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
quoted
Matt,
in message [off-list ref] you wrote:
quoted
It would be nice if you could work support for your silicon into
the de facto standard Linux/PPC community trees like the MPC85xx
folks are doing.
We tried. We really tried.
Yes, and the outcome was we made a linux-2.4-mpc5xxx tree, tried to get
comments, did so, and it was rejected for being too ugly for kernel.org
at the time, IIRC.
quoted
See the thread starting at
http://lists.linuxppc.org/linuxppc-dev/200311/msg00000.html
David even posted on this list to get feedback from the community.
But I haven't seen a single reply on the mailing lists.
So? Repost. I miss stuff the first time around a lot of times
myself [this is not to indicate that I would necessarily comment
on 5200 stuff, just an example].
And this time do it against 2.6. Even if 2.4 wasn't necessarily frozen
at the time we first tried, it is now.
--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
quoted
quoted
See the thread starting at
http://lists.linuxppc.org/linuxppc-dev/200311/msg00000.html
David even posted on this list to get feedback from the
community. But I haven't seen a single reply on the mailing
lists.
So? Repost. I miss stuff the first time around a lot of times
myself [this is not to indicate that I would necessarily comment
on 5200 stuff, just an example].
And this time do it against 2.6. Even if 2.4 wasn't necessarily
frozen at the time we first tried, it is now.
Actually I got some patch to support MPC5200 ( and only this one, no
mgt5100 stuff ) for 2.6
It only supports booting, serial console and i2c. Not much but could
that be put in official tree if I submit it ? Or does it need to
support more than that to worth inclusion.
So that at least if someone tries to implement more ( I'll resume my
work on it in a few weeks ), it has a base already in official tree.
Sylvain Munaut
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/