Subject: Re: PPC Tree structures (Was, at some point: Re: Support for Arctic platform (405LP based))

From: Cort Dougan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:13:40 -0700

Right, changes would keep going.  Having many trees all based on the same
root would make moving patches back and forth much easier.

People would be able to grab what they need (a booting walnut, for example)
without pulling in >1 years worth of development and unstable changes.  I
definitely think it would be useful.

} But more trees with smaller patches doesn't mean that the 'growth'
} stops.  Furthermore, there's only 4 things in _devel right now:
} 1) 4xx - It's "stable", in that there haven't been any big changes for
} some time, and as far as I know few "bugs".  But there's still a lot to
} be done.

Exactly my point.  It's mired in the next of _devel right now but should be
shoved up into the stable tree.

} 2) 8xx - This can quite probably all go right on up and out, pending
} time.

Same thing.

} 3) OpenPIC / i8259 cleanups, some backported from 2.5 some original, all
} of which is quite stable right now.  There's just boards which need
} updating still (!!!).  This is ready to go up and out, and will move a
} large chunk of code out of _devel with it.
} 4) gt64260 support.  What's in _devel now is stale, and this doesn't
} depend on anything in _devel now anyhow.  FWIW, this exists in its own
} tree anyways :)

All the more reason for a linuxppc_2_4_galileo tree.

} Far too much division, which also makes moving things up more painful as
} each one will conflict on the cpu-specific stuff, the config.in entry,
} etc.

I don't think so.  It just illustrates what is already the case - it's just
not organized.  Each BK tree is its own node in that graph I drew.  This
just formalizes it a bit so people know where to push/pull from when they
want a specific thing.

} But regardless of all of that, there's nothing related to this being a
} 'marcelo' tree or not as you can't pick and choose bk csets without
} everything preceeding it.  Ideally we can get to the point of not really
} needing a seperate tree like 2.2 is (which could go if someone wants to
} sit down and think about the LongTrail-specific changes in there).

Is there a point to this not being based on the Marcelo tree?  A good
cleanout and shift over to it is certainly worthwhile.

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/