Re: [uClinux-dev] ltib vs uclinux-dist

2009-09-01 Thread Alexander Stein
Hello, Am Friday 14 August 2009 13:22:59 schrieb Philippe De Muyter: After reading this : http://rtg.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de/docs/da-sa-txt/sa-steal.pdf I don't feel anymore it is interesting. I'm the author of this document and as far as I know, Freescale has merged some of the change we

Re: [uClinux-dev] ltib vs uclinux-dist

2009-09-01 Thread Philippe De Muyter
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 08:22:37AM +0200, Alexander Stein wrote: Hello, Am Friday 14 August 2009 13:22:59 schrieb Philippe De Muyter: After reading this : http://rtg.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de/docs/da-sa-txt/sa-steal.pdf I don't feel anymore it is interesting. I'm the author of this

Re: [uClinux-dev] ltib vs uclinux-dist

2009-09-01 Thread Alexander Stein
Hello, Am Tuesday 01 September 2009 09:59:17 schrieb Philippe De Muyter: IIRC, systec's name comes in some files distributed with the M5484lite develpoment board. but these are patches against linux-2.6.25 that do not apply anymore to the current version of linux kernel, and I see no sign of

Re: [uClinux-dev] ltib vs uclinux-dist

2009-09-01 Thread Greg Ungerer
Hi Philippe, On 09/01/2009 05:59 PM, Philippe De Muyter wrote: On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 08:22:37AM +0200, Alexander Stein wrote: Hello, Am Friday 14 August 2009 13:22:59 schrieb Philippe De Muyter: After reading this : http://rtg.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de/docs/da-sa-txt/sa-steal.pdf I don't

Re: [uClinux-dev] ltib vs uclinux-dist

2009-09-01 Thread Steven King
On Tuesday 01 September 2009 04:52:06 Philippe De Muyter wrote: Longer term I think we need to fully merge m68k and m68knommu before we push any MMU ColdFire patches to mainline. I fully agree with that. Who is currently working on the m68k/m68knommu merge ? Is there a mailing-list,