Am 02.07.2012 11:37, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > Il 02/07/2012 11:31, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >> On 2 July 2012 10:08, Igor Mitsyanko <i.mitsya...@samsung.com> wrote: >>> So, what's the consensus here, for now new devices go to >>> hw/arm/Makefile.objs while somebody moves all new and old not cpu-specific >>> devices (not just exynos-related) from hw/arm/Makefile.objs to >>> hw/Makefile.objs with one commit? Because having one RTC device compile >>> through hw/Makefile.objs while all other exynos devices are compiled through >>> hw/arm/Makefile.objs doesn't makes much sense. >> >> I don't want things moved piecemeal, especially not one file from >> a whole board model. >> >> I'd also like to see a nice clear summary of the ground rules first >> (ie how you decide which makefile / target / whatever a file should >> be in). At the moment I'm not really sure what the rules are, which >> means I can't properly review those bits of patches. > > For now nothing should change compared to the past, except that obj-y > should appear in hw/ARCH/Makefile.objs rather than Makefile.target. > This is because there is still no mechanism to guard the build of > ARM-only devices from hw/Makefile.objs. When Anthony's patch lands, we > can start moving files to hw/Makefile.objs using CONFIG_ARCH_ARM; I > understood Andreas is going to do that.
Not quite. What I started long before Anthony's patch is making devices (first Xilinx then ARM) less dependent on my CPU changes. That does not need CONFIG_[ARCH_]* in our current system. With armeb in mind I've gone for SoC-level and more fine-granular for generic devices. Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg