as davinci which is starting to be clean
Sorry, but I can't find any board/ti which would be board/<vendor> you mention above. Even not for davinci. I looked into u-boot-arm-master and -next.
and the code is start to be moved
But what I can find in both trees are
board/davinci/common board/davinci/dvevm board/davinci/schmoogie board/davinci/<all other Davinci boards>
This is 100% the same layout we use for OMAP3 boards. Looks fine to me.
not to me
We talk about *board* specific code here, it is totally unrelated to <arch> or the <soc> we use. This board specific code configures an OMAP3 (SoC) external companion chip which is on the board (or not). Some boards which share the basic layout have this companion chip, some not. Please note that original config options (we remove with this patch) were the *board* config options (e.g. CONFIG_OMAP3_BEAGLE) to enable the compilation of power.c, too.
as show now the power.c code is shared by a lot's of omap3 boards and as you said it's a power companion for the omap3
so 2 choices move the code to cpu/omap3 as it's omap3 specific
No and no. Above I mentioned why cpu/ is wrong (because it's board related code) and that it's not OMAP3 (SoC) specific. It's (OMAP3) *board* specific.
or to drivers/
Driver makes no sense either, because it's not a driver. Power.c *uses* drivers e.g. I2C (like the board code) to access board components.
no I2C is the communication bus, but you write a i2c drivers to manage the power chips so it's a drivers
Yes, I can do this. Unfortunately, you can't imagine how clever TI is with selling mainly the same functionality (chips) with different chip names. So most probably there is more than on chip name, and I'm not sure if I will get them right. Most probably only TI marketing department will get this right ;)
why not start with the chip name or the familly name if they can be manage by the same driver
Best Regards, J.