7 Aug
2010
7 Aug
'10
2:01 a.m.
Mike Frysinger wrote:
If, after considering my comments above, you still think you really need a custodian for AT91, I am game for it.
go for it -mike
Hi Wolfgang, Mike,
considering that both AVR32 and AT91 share most of the peripheral hardware building blocks, and therefore share the drivers, it seems to make sense to have an atmel custodian tree instead of avr32 and at91. Each change to a shared driver must (at least with MAKEALL) be checked for both architectures and adding it to both trees would make life unnecessary complicated...
Best Regards, Reinhard