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'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.
Anyway, that's my $.02
Peter