[ECOS] New ARM core port

[Patrick Doyle]

> On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 13:30, Patrick Doyle wrote:
> > > I don't see any good reason to break how the ARM platforms are
> > > already being handled (yes, I know they don't match how PowerPC
> > > and MIPS are done), so I think just putting it under hal/arm/arm9
> > > would be best.
> > >
> > Actually, I was planning on creating hal/arm/omap, hal/arm/omap/var, and
> > hal/arm/omap/platform1, hal/arm/omap/platform2, etc...
> >
> > Would you prefer that I put the new platform(s) under hal/arm/arm9?
>
> I would think so - aren't they ARM9 variants?  Whatever that is
> special about being "omap" could be separated out if there is
> much to it (as opposed to what is special about being "arm9")
>
> You might end up with something like this:
>   hal/
>       arm/
>           arch
>           arm9/
>                var
>                omap_platform1
>                omap_platform2
>                  ...
>
> If there is sufficient overlap, then you might add
>                omap
> to handle the common parts.
OK, that works for me.  I misunderstood the differences between the arm9,
sa11x0, etc... directories.

BTW, you were right.  (Gee, don't you just _LOVE_ hearing that?) The MMU
stuff went in very easily.  The hardest part was getting over my personal
bias against having a bootloader or a deeply embedded application require
the use of the MMU to operate properly.  Once I decided that it wasn't much
different than the chip select state machines on the powerpc, I was able to
(mostly) overcome that bias.

Thanks again for the hard work.

--wpd


-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss