In message 006701c7603a$95ed3930$01c4af0a@Glamdring you wrote:
----- Original Message -----
Please don't top-post / full quote. Thanks.
Do we really need the "freescale" subdirectory here? Maybe cpu/arm_imx would be a shorter and more descriptive name?
...
I think it is a matter of taste.
Agreed.
Some people would like to have consistency making it easy to find where things are located.
To me making it easy to find where things are located includes not to add unnecessary directory levels.
When adding "cpu/freescale/" I see no clear line what should go in there and what not. Whould we then move all the cpu/mpc???/ directories into cpu/freescale/ ? And then probably create (for consistency) a "cpu/amcc/" directory and mode cpu/ppc4xx into that one? What do we get in addition to another directory level? IMO that would not improve anything, and you still don't see where shared code is located.
If you look at what is driving duplication, then you find that the peripherals are either developed inside a semiconductor company, or they are licensed from an IP provider.
It makes a lot of sense therefore to dedicate directories to the providers of IP: ARM is a provider, but so are also Freescale, Atmel and others.
Well, where did license Freescale the IMX core from? I don't think that we should focus on vendor names here, but instead on content. And the content is "ARM IMX" related code. Assuming that is CPU specific enough to go under "cpu/", I feel we should either add a "cpu/imx" directory or - a little more descriptive - "cpu/arm_imx/" as suggested above. Even "cpu/arm/imx/" seems more natural to me than "cpu/freescale/imx/".
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk