From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 22 15:15:56 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B7416A400 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:15:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mlfbsd@dong.ci0.org) Received: from dong.ci0.org (cognet.ci0.org [80.65.224.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8464213C4BA for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:15:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mlfbsd@dong.ci0.org) Received: from dong.ci0.org (localhost.ci0.org [127.0.0.1]) by dong.ci0.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l2MFVOs5079104; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:31:24 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mlfbsd@dong.ci0.org) Received: (from mlfbsd@localhost) by dong.ci0.org (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l2MFVNeJ079103; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:31:23 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mlfbsd) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:31:23 +0100 From: Olivier Houchard To: Sam Leffler Message-ID: <20070322153123.GB79016@ci0.org> References: <20070322092609.GA58744@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <46029B48.9000906@errno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46029B48.9000906@errno.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: current to 6-stable merge plans/policy X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the StrongARM Processor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:15:56 -0000 On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 08:05:44AM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote: > John Hay wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > > > What are the ideas (policy) about merging the arm/ixp425/avila stuff > > to 6-stable? I see some arm stuff gets merged, but it does not look > > like everything? Is it just that people merge what they need? > > > > Just trying to get a feel for it. Up to now I have used 6-stable on > > our soekris and wrap boards, but we are probably going to use the > > Avila boards a bit more, so I was wondering if I should use -current > > or 6-stable on them. Up to now my Avila and ADI testing was done with > > -current, but I'm not sure if that is a good idea for boxes that will > > end up in rural areas far far away. Hmm. Not that I have seen a panic > > on the Avila boards, but they have gone through a lot less testing up > > to now. > > Not sure what's been missed. I see no reason not to MFC anything > arm-related unless it breaks code compatibility (and even there it's > unlikely there are 3rd party codes to worry about). > > Sam Hi John, Sorry for lack of answers, I really need to get back in the loop. Avila works fine in RELENG_6. Generally, MFC'ing arm stuff should happen more often. On an unrelated note, your changes (I think, maybe I should've had a closer look) seem to provoke an interrupt storm on ATA when there's no CF card inserted, I seem to remember it may be why we did some ugly stuff. Olivier