From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24029 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2003 20:11:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24002 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2003 20:11:48 -0000 Message-ID: <3FD0E68B.3060907@ecosentric.com> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:11:00 -0000 From: John Dallaway User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ecos-maintainers@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: EDOSK-2674 port contribution References: <000b01c3ba47$0a81a9e0$2c79378d@uwepc> In-Reply-To: <000b01c3ba47$0a81a9e0$2c79378d@uwepc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00009.txt.bz2 Uwe Kindler wrote: > I have ported eCos to the Renesas EDOSK-2674 platform. The port is based on > Yoshinori Satos EDOSK-2674 port but > is partly rewritten, bugfixed or completely changed and optimised. The port > introduces a new architecture and includes: > > New architecture: H8S > New variant H8S/2674 > New platform: EDOSK-2674 I would like to see some justification for treating H8S as a completely different architecture. I know very little about the H8 family but would imagine that H8/300H and H8S should be implemented as variant HALs. John Dallaway eCosCentric Limited