Hi,

On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 03:02 -0600, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 December 2009 01:17:11 am Kalle Valo wrote:
> > "Luke-Jr" <l...@dashjr.org> writes:
> > > On that topic, is there a reason the newer code is under a unified "N8x0"
> > > config option instead of the split N800/N810 that was used for the old
> > > code, or is that simply a symptom of the currently-supported features all
> > > being common?
> > 
> > IIRC, I just used one common n8x0 file because the n810 board file was
> > very small and I didn't see any benefit from having it separately.
> 
> Yeah, that's because someone put all the N810 code in the N800 file ;)
> 
> Will probably at least split out the differences, if there's no other reason, 
> then. Since I'm doing this stuff only for my own personal interest, I'll 
> probably not bother to do much with N800 support unless someone feels like 
> sending me one when I finish N810 (definitely not touching N800 before then).

I think it's not worth the effort. Those boards share a lot of code.
You'll end up with several small board files

-- 
balbi

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to