Hi,
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 09:30:20PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
I've just had a look at the i.MX (MC9328 MX1, or however this thing is called) Port in current CVS. The main differences are:
I would prefer imx for the architecture - it's i.MX, not only MC9328 or even MX1.
- different boards supported. Two custom boards <-> MX1ADS. Adding support for MX1ADS should be no problem, though, since we only have to rewrite some register definitions. Unfortunately I don't have the hardware.
Having support for the ADS would definitely a Good Thing (TM).
(1) add your patch (2) add your patch and revert Ming-Len Wu's patch (3) use Ming-Len Wu's code as base for which you submit fixes/improvements
(1) means that we have the same architecture / board supported twice differently. Not good. rejected.
From your posting it seems clear that your position is (2) [is it?];
So I would prefer position (2), too.
I would prefer to do (2) with a little bit of (3) ;) It shouldn't be too much work to port Mng-Len Wu's port to the more generic variant.
Robert