7 Aug
2010
7 Aug
'10
2:20 a.m.
On Friday, August 06, 2010 20:01:45 Reinhard Meyer wrote:
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
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...
yes, but the cores are going to be radically different. so i imagine you'd be fine with the peripheral drivers, but not the avr32 core. it's your time though of course. -mike