Grant Likely wrote:
On 9/23/07, Shinya Kuribayashi skuribay@ruby.dti.ne.jp wrote:
Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
It would be more useful to collect all boards using one specific chip in a single directory. arch/arm/<chip>/board.
This is too tight, isn't it? Strictly speaking, boards are not related to chips (at least for me). So I'll vote +1 for Jean's.
Just to throw a wrench in the works, what about boards like the Xilinx ML403 which can be *either* PowerPC or MicroBlaze. :-)
I wanted to note doing <chip>/board is not much convinient from the technical point of view.
As ML403, NEC also has the platform board on which different CPUs or different ARCHs are available.
I still think sticking with the existing board/ directory (but perhaps organizing it better) makes the most sense. Each board directory can pull in whatever cpu/soc support it needs.
So fully Agreed. I should have voted +1 for Wolfgang's. Thanks for your clarification with a concrete example.
Thanks,
Shinya Kuribayashi
P.S. IMO even SOCs are not related to CPU ore CPU core.
From SoC point of view, CPU is just a piece of component.
But that's another story ;-)