On Mon 2015-02-02 10:18:23, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 01/31/2015 08:20 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Albert,
On 31 January 2015 at 20:02, Albert ARIBAUD albert.u.boot@aribaud.net wrote:
Hello Masahiro,
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 15:11:02 +0900, Masahiro Yamada yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com wrote:
This series can be applied on the current u-boot/master (commit 37b608a52dcb133)
I'd rather not have all mach-* directories just below arch/arm/. Can't they be created under arch/arm/soc/ instead? That would give a cleaner structure IMO.
It does save a level and I am forever typing cpu/armv7 to get what feels like nowhere...this is what the kernel does and it does seem convenient.
Do note that arch/arm/mach* doesn't/won't entirely match what the Linux kernel does.
In Linux, arch/arm64 doesn't have mach-* sub-directories, and the arm/arm64 architectures are different so don't share the code in arch/arm/mach-tegra, so there's work underway to move stuff out of arch/arm/mach-tegra and into either appropriate subsystem directories or drivers/soc/tegra.
Given all that, I suspect we should decide the directory layout of U-Boot based on what's best for U-Boot, not by trying to chase the changing target of the Linux kernel.
Well, I'd say that best directory layout is the one we are familiar with ... from Linux. And we don't need to chase that target. Pavel