On Mon 2015-02-02 10:18:23, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 01/31/2015 08:20 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > >Hi Albert, > > > >On 31 January 2015 at 20:02, Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net> > >wrote: > >>Hello Masahiro, > >> > >>On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 15:11:02 +0900, Masahiro Yamada > >><yamad...@jp.panasonic.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>This series can be applied on the current u-boot/master > >>>(commit 37b608a52dcb133) > >> > >>I'd rather not have all mach-* directories just below arch/arm/. Can't > >>they be created under arch/arm/soc/ instead? That would give a cleaner > >>structure IMO. > > > >It does save a level and I am forever typing cpu/armv7 to get what > >feels like nowhere...this is what the kernel does and it does seem > >convenient. > > Do note that arch/arm/mach* doesn't/won't entirely match what the Linux > kernel does. > > In Linux, arch/arm64 doesn't have mach-* sub-directories, and the arm/arm64 > architectures are different so don't share the code in arch/arm/mach-tegra, > so there's work underway to move stuff out of arch/arm/mach-tegra and into > either appropriate subsystem directories or drivers/soc/tegra. > > Given all that, I suspect we should decide the directory layout of U-Boot > based on what's best for U-Boot, not by trying to chase the changing target > of the Linux kernel.
Well, I'd say that best directory layout is the one we are familiar with ... from Linux. And we don't need to chase that target. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot