On Thu, 8 May 2008 13:30:06 +1000
David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 09:46:30PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 May 2008 10:18:50 +1000
> > David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 01:47:31PM -0700, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 09:46:30PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 10:18:50 +1000
> David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 01:47:31PM -0700, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote:
> > > The IBM coreconnect names are pretty well defined, it appears. In
> > > addit
On Thu, 8 May 2008 10:18:50 +1000
David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 01:47:31PM -0700, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote:
> > The IBM coreconnect names are pretty well defined, it appears. In
> > addition, the Xilinx versions of these IPs seem to be proliferating.
> > Henc
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 01:47:31PM -0700, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote:
> The IBM coreconnect names are pretty well defined, it appears. In
> addition, the Xilinx versions of these IPs seem to be proliferating.
> Hence, in the future let's prefer to use the standard names. I've
> left the old names
Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Grant Likely
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 3:33 PM
> To: Stephen Neuendorffer
> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Xilinx: add compatibility for IBM
coreconnect busses.
>
> On
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Stephen Neuendorffer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The IBM coreconnect names are pretty well defined, it appears. In
> addition, the Xilinx versions of these IPs seem to be proliferating.
> Hence, in the future let's prefer to use the standard names. I've
> left
