On 22:42 Fri 10 Jul , Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 10 July 2009 21:20:45 Shinya Kuribayashi wrote:
Peter Tyser wrote:
Before verifying MIPS builds, I'd like to make sure that why you take lib/$(ARCH)/ alternative, not $(ARCH)/lib/. If there were any discussion on #IRC, is there any chance we could share the summary or decision to follow?
There was no discussion, /lib/$(ARCH) just made more sense to me and it was functionally a direct translation from lib_$(ARCH) to lib/$(ARCH).
Using $(ARCH)/lib wouldn't clean up the top-level directory structure much and would open a can of worms that I'm not prepared to deal with at this time. For example, if there was an architecture specific
Oops, I wanted to say "arch/$(ARCH)/lib/", not $(ARCH)/lib/, sorry.
i thought that originally, but i dont care much either way. having arch/$(ARCH)/ would line up with u-boot-v2 and the linux kernel though.
i dont understand needing a lib/ subdir under arch/$(ARCH)/ though.
While we're talking about it, I'd always thought it would be nice to split out all the cmd_* files from common/ into their own command/ directory similar to u-boot-v2.
Ack. The directory structure in u-boot-v2 looks nice, at least, to me, anyway.
I prefer the arch/$(ARCH)/lib so will could also move the cpu stuff there too
for the command dir why not
Best Regards, J.