Hi, On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 03:02 -0600, Luke-Jr wrote: > On Wednesday 30 December 2009 01:17:11 am Kalle Valo wrote: > > "Luke-Jr" <luke@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On that topic, is there a reason the newer code is under a unified "N8x0" > > > config option instead of the split N800/N810 that was used for the old > > > code, or is that simply a symptom of the currently-supported features all > > > being common? > > > > IIRC, I just used one common n8x0 file because the n810 board file was > > very small and I didn't see any benefit from having it separately. > > Yeah, that's because someone put all the N810 code in the N800 file ;) > > Will probably at least split out the differences, if there's no other reason, > then. Since I'm doing this stuff only for my own personal interest, I'll > probably not bother to do much with N800 support unless someone feels like > sending me one when I finish N810 (definitely not touching N800 before then). I think it's not worth the effort. Those boards share a lot of code. You'll end up with several small board files -- balbi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
