Re: [microblaze-uclinux] Thinking about the 2.6 kernel

[Claudio Lanconelli <lanconelli.claudio@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi John,
IMHO a good reason to do this big step may be the need to more
drivers. For example some drivers like the MTD subsystem don't
support anymore the 2.4 kernel. A back port is always possible
but is a big effort and sometimes is not possible.
I think the port to 2.6 kernel is a must but probably is not the most
urgent work to do. I will prefer to see soon other features like C++
support and a better application debug support (gdbserver).

Cheers,
Claudio Lanconelli

John Williams wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> The most common question I seem to get these days is "When will you do a
> 2.6 kernel port for MicroBlaze?".
>
> My answer is generally the same - "It's on the radar, but no firm
> plans".  Basically I need some pretty good reasons to commit the time
> and energy into a new kernel port.  Remember it's not just
> linux-2.6.x/arch/microblaze, there's drivers to consider, and changes to
> auto-config architecture and so on.
>
> So, here's your chance.  Convince me that a 2.6 port is the way to go.
> Good reasons, bad reasons, technical reasons, marketing reasons - all
> will be entertained.  I'm open to counter-arguments too, if you think
> it's *not* worth doing.
>
> Let's see what you've got!
>
> John
>
>
> ___________________________
> microblaze-uclinux mailing list
> microblaze-uclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Project Home Page : http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~jwilliams/mblaze-uclinux
> Mailing List Archive : http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~listarch/microblaze-uclinux/
>
>
>  
___________________________
microblaze-uclinux mailing list
microblaze-uclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Project Home Page : http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~jwilliams/mblaze-uclinux
Mailing List Archive : http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~listarch/microblaze-uclinux/