Andreas Bießmann schrieb:
Dear Reinhard Meyer,
Yes, AVR32 seems to be a dead architecture but I do think mainline U-Boot support for it has its right to exist.
I was not meaning to remove support, just pointing out that a custodian might not be necessary (anymore). Since it is unlikely the many patches pop up... Patches for common drivers for AVR32 and AT91 will be mainlined the AT91 way, and maybe testing them always on AVR32 should not be required.
We have two devices using the AP7000. We do think about a major U-Boot update for at least one of these devices. With latest patches from Haavard the avr32 architecture is usable again and we may switch from 2008.10 to 2010.06.
I had the ATNGW100 working fine with 2010.06, the patches from June 4th onwards still linger around.
I have an at91rm9200 based eval kit at home and plan to do some effort to get this board mainline (but since january I work on arm-linux toolchain for my mac ...). Therefore I can do testing for some at91 drivers in near future.
I think the RM9200 is quite different from the bunch of the SAM9 ones.
We plan to use some at91sam based cpu's for further products. Therefore I could do testing and/or reviews at work too (maybe end of this year).
That would help, of course.
If we do switch to 2010.06 I plan to do some work on atmel_usart which I think is a shared driver between avr32 and at91.
Yes, and because of that its needs testing on both architectures. What I don't like in the current AVR32 and AT91 drivers is the several times and in different .h files wrapping of the peripherals' hardware address into new defines.
Reinhard