On 08/19/2011 03:08 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 08/19/2011 11:07 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 19 août 2011 à 17:52, Natalia Portillo<clau...@claunia.com> a écrit : >> >>> >>> El 19/08/2011, a las 09:55, François Revol escribió: >> [snip] >>>> Release early, release often :p >>> >>> +1Ok, Ok, I think all m68k core can be submitted except some bitfield >>> operations and fpu instructions. >> >> Just need to know how Anthony and Paul want I proceed... > > Well let's step back here for a minute. > > The most important problem to solve is for someone to maintain whatever > is in the tree consistently (and incrementally) improving what we have.
I dunno about maintain and improve, but if an m68k board emulation starts working I can regression test it against Linux system images and make puppy eyes at people when it breaks. (Plus the occasional monkey patch offering The Wrong Fix to motivate people. :) > Laurent, if you want to take over m68k and Paul doesn't object, I'm all > for it. But that doesn't mean that I want to see 400 commits of stuff > that only half works. I'd like to see a systematic approach to either > picking a platform and making it robust or fixing what's there already. I would very much like something capable of booting m68k Linux, specifically http://landley.net/aboriginal/downloads/binaries/old/1.0.1/system-image-m68k.tar.bz2 (The kernel in that tarball is randomish, I think some defconfig for atari, but the root filesystem was tested under ananym and worked.) I'm in the process of building a Linux 3.0, uClibc 0.9.32, busybox 1.19.0 variant which should be ready tomorrow-ish, if that would be a better testing base. I'm probably basing it on the atari_defconfig in the 3.0 kernel unless somebody has a better idea. (In case I need to fish out aranym again.) Rob
