On 11:37 Sat 18 Jul , Peter Tyser wrote: > > > > I'd vote to get the directory structure changed as desired (in this > > > release), then integrate the Kconfig-based build system in the next > > > release once the directory layout is stable. Jean-Christophe is the > > > most familiar with the Kbuild system and might have a better idea what > > > its state is, how hard it would be to adapt to a new directory layout, > > > etc. Do you have any input Jean-Christophe? > > more we will be close to the linux organisation more easier it will be to > > integrate it and update it > > Your sentence above implies you'd like the directory structure to match > Linux's BEFORE adding Kconfig support... > > > the only really important think is to merge to KConfig first. > > But this sentence states you'd prefer to change the directory structure > AFTER adding Kconfig support? I do not care that much for the Kconfig but we need to have it before the Kbuild support which is different > > I'd still vote for changing the directory structure in this release, > then apply the Kconfig changes in the next one. The same Kconfig files > you've already made could still be used regardless of directory layout, > correct? ie all you'd have to do is change the "source oldpath" to > "source newpath" in some Kconfig files and maybe update a Makefile or 2? > > In any case, one of us would have to fix up the Kconfig support to work > with a new directory layout. In my opinion, if its not hard to update > the Kconfigs to work with a new directory layout it would make more > sense for you to do it at the same time as adding Kconfig support > instead of me making both directory layout and Kconfig changes at the > same time. that's fine for me
Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot