On 9/23/07, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD plagnioj@jcrosoft.com wrote:
Le 23/09/07 23:37, «Wolfgang Denk» wd@denx.de a écrit:
In message C31C78A0.3BD3%plagnioj@jcrosoft.com you wrote:
2) About the re-organization I'd like to create a tree like following arch/arm/ arch/arm/board <- the boardsWhat's wrong with board/ ?
The idea is to organize the board by cpu's arch like it's done in the kernel tree. Actually all boards are stored directly in "board" and the lib-'arch' in the "srctree", to simplify the splitting in the kconfig menu. And although regroup the common arch's code.
I disagree. Kconfig layout has little effect on the directory structure at this time. Kconfig will be make to work with whatever layout we agree on. Personally, I also like the existing board/ structure, but I think it would make sense to divide more boards into a board/<vendor>/<board> structure like the Freescale boards are (purely for the logistical reason of finding the correct board port directory)
arch/arm/boot <- where will be store the u-boot & u-boot.binI don't see a use for this. What's wroing with having these files in the top level directory?
The problem is when you work on multiple architecture & board. But it's most cosmetic.
That is already solved with the $(obj) macro. You can build outside the source tree.
Cheers, g.