2015-11-10 5:24 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: >>> I am unhappy because I was hoping >>> we could stop creating symbolic links during building >>> in a long run. > > But how? I don't see that it is possible if we want to have a sensible > prefix for each include.
[step 1] move SoC-specific headers to arch/<arch>/mach-<soc>/include/mach [step 2] change #include <asm/arch/foo.h> to #include <mach/foo.h> [step 3] Drop CONFIG_CREATE_ARCH_SYMLINK For example, mach-uniphier finished [1] and [2], so it does not require the symbolic link. (several ARM SoCs finished [1]) I think this is the way ARM should do, at least. The topic of debate is PowerPC. Should we introduce mach-<soc> directories or not? >> >> OK. what do we do? >> option 1: >> #include "..common/xyz.h" >> 141 something usage in board files do this for now.. >> >> option 2: >> -I...common (auto generated - original patch) >> #include "xyz.h" >> we dont like that since it does not tell us that xyz.h is a >> board-common header. >> >> option 3: >> #include <board-common/xyz.h> >> >> this needs a soft link which we dont like either. > > Well, I like it :-) > >> >> are there any other ways to do this? >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Nishanth Menon >> _______________________________________________ >> U-Boot mailing list >> U-Boot@lists.denx.de >> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot > > > Regards, > Simon > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > U-Boot@lists.denx.de > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot