On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 06:32:17AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
Sascha, Sascha Hauer said the following on 07/22/2008 02:21 AM:
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 07:15:31PM -0500, Khandenahally, Raghavendra wrote:
I would prefer another patch. I didn't watch out when board/omap was introduced. In fact, omap is not a board and it's gonna be a mess when
I beg to differ on this, we have so many development platforms on various versions of OMAP all sharing so much board characteristics that it makes more sense to put all omap boards together in the same directory. This is to recover from the mess we have had on other versions where duplication of code was forced due to splitting files accross. Nothing OMAP specific is put there.
And this is exactly the problem I have with this name. I don't have a problem with putting multiple boards in one directory, it's only the name which makes people think, hm, my board is omap based, I'll put mine there, too. Besides, I still think it's better to put one board in one directory and once we realize that code would be useful for more than one board move it one level up, arch/arm/mach-omap in this case. The only code shared between omap boards so far is 10 lines of assembly code. Is there more to come?
Regards, Sascha