From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8231 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2007 19:29:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 8222 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Aug 2007 19:29:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from quina.moeckel.org (HELO quina.moeckel.org) (217.160.223.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:29:28 +0000 Received: from bluebird.headcrashers.bnfh (bluebird.headcrashers.org [IPv6:2001:8d8:81:a11:204:acff:fe97:190]) (authenticated bits=0) by quina.moeckel.org (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id l7TJTLsl012129 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:29:22 +0200 Received: from bluebird.headcrashers.bnfh (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bluebird.headcrashers.bnfh (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l7TJTKbv024920; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:29:20 +0200 Received: (from woodstoc@localhost) by bluebird.headcrashers.bnfh (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l7TJTJCZ024690; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:29:19 +0200 Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:29:00 -0000 From: Hans Rosenfeld To: Scott Moore Cc: ecos-discuss@ecos.sourceware.org Message-ID: <20070829192912.GA24434@grumpf.hope-2000.org> References: <20070829125314.GJ31057@lunn.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: [ECOS] Notification of changes required for CPU support X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00166.txt.bz2 On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:46:32PM -0400, Scott Moore wrote: > Right now, I am just hacking up the lpc2xxx series to get our stuff > running without regard for lpc21xx and lpc22xx backwards compatibility. > > Hey, blame Phillips for creating an incompatibility in their own > series. Is this the only incompatibility? AFAIK the lpc23xx series uses a ARM9 core and has more (different) on-chip peripherals and memory. I have currently no clue about that, but I think that supporting the lpc23xx in a different tree would make sense iff there more incompatibilities than just the interrupt stuff. But renaming the lpc2xxx in lpc21xx_lpc22xx is something I wouldn't do. I would just leave it as it is, adding a new CPU without disturbing any old once. -- %SYSTEM-F-ANARCHISM, The operating system has been overthrown -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss