On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 08:41 +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you for your comment. > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > > On Sun, 2013-03-17 at 08:35 +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote: > >> Package: linux > >> Version: 3.8.2-1~experimental.1 > >> Severity: wishlist > >> Tags: patch > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> >From linux 3.8, support of armada 370/xp was added in arm. > >> This is classified into the armhf architecture of debian. > >> First I began and thought that an armada flavor would be added. > >> When I consulted about this in debian-arm ML, I got advice from > >> several developers what "multiplatform" flavour was better than > >> "armada" flavour[0]. > >> > >> Since arm is developed toward multiplatform from now on, > >> I think that "multiplatform" is desirable. > >> Although there is still little SoC which is supporting > >> multiplatform, I would like to support armada 370/xp > >> (mach-mvebu) first. > >> > >> I created the patch which supports this. > >> Please check and apply. > > > > In future all ARM kernels should be multi-platform, but I expect there > > will still be different flavours, such as for LPAE or the RT featureset. > > I would much prefer a name that will provide a more useful distinction > > in future (and not be too long!). Perhaps it should refer to the CPU > > requirement like the flavours for some other architectures. > > I see. Although it is very simple, how is "armmp"? [...] Sounds alright to be, but let's allow the other ARM porters a few more days to comment. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings When you say `I wrote a program that crashed Windows', people just stare ... and say `Hey, I got those with the system, *for free*'. - Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part