Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:46:50 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: "Michael C . Wu" <keichii@peorth.iteration.net> Cc: Thomas Runge <runge@rostock.zgdv.de>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: StrongARM support? Message-ID: <200012201946.MAA10857@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:19:54 CST." <20001220031954.A19117@peorth.iteration.net> References: <20001220031954.A19117@peorth.iteration.net> <20001219125657.A94588@peorth.iteration.net> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012200849250.852-100000@penguin.egd.igd.fhg.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20001220031954.A19117@peorth.iteration.net> "Michael C . Wu" writes: : It was my understanding from BSDCon2000 that we are targeting : more platforms. It is my sense of core that core would support new architectures if they make sense. To make sense, the architecutre must be widely deployed (or about to be widely deployed). It must have enough brains that a port can be undertaken w/o rewriting large parts of the system (the MMU requirement). It must have enough of a life to make it worth while. And it must have a base of users that are willing to support it in the long haul. By long haul, I mean multiple years. StrongARM generally fits into this model. What is lacking is a good prototype. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200012201946.MAA10857>