On 02/05/07 20:50 +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
Don't do it. Thanks. Removing working code is not a good option, and
there may still be people with rev_a/btest boards out there.
Also, the code is very useful as a reference for other boards etc.
There's no indication that code is actually working -
On 02/05/07 21:12 -0700, ron minnich wrote:
yes, it is companies and organizations that ship distros and turn on
switches that require things like stack checking, and hence break
linuxbios builds on certain distros. They don't seem to realize that
all the world is NOT an application ...
let me say it differently. I think if we want to target OLPC, we ought
to do it from V3, not V2. I'm still in favor of dropping the current
code and forcing a 'rework' of the code.
Get people into working with V3. It is so much nicer ...
ron
--
linuxbios mailing list
linuxbios@linuxbios.org
On 03/05/07 08:52 -0700, ron minnich wrote:
let me say it differently. I think if we want to target OLPC, we ought
to do it from V3, not V2. I'm still in favor of dropping the current
code and forcing a 'rework' of the code.
To me, the current OLPC code is the worst possible example of a Geode
Jordan Crouse wrote:
I have no problem at all with somebody porting V3 to work on the OLPC -
I hope they do it for every Geode platform they can get their hands on.
But perpetrating iffy code that will never be used in production for a board
that will never *be* in production to me is silly.
* Jordan Crouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070503 18:01]:
I have no problem at all with somebody porting V3 to work on the OLPC -
I hope they do it for every Geode platform they can get their hands on.
But perpetrating iffy code that will never be used in production for a board
that will never *be* in
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 12:20:14PM -0400, Richard Smith wrote:
then we end up dropping half the tree. This is not something
unique to the OLPC and GX.
Good point.
If we drop code then for someone to go look at the olpc stuff they
will have to figure out what revision of the tree had the
