From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Tyser <ptyser@xes-inc.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:20:43 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 0/6] Clean up top-level directory structure
In-Reply-To: <20090712125427.GD21713@game.jcrosoft.org>
References: <1247241800-29059-1-git-send-email-ptyser@xes-inc.com>
	<1247272852.32367.241.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<4A57E8ED.3040604@pobox.com> <200907102242.07717.vapier@gentoo.org>
	<20090712125427.GD21713@game.jcrosoft.org>
Message-ID: <1247584843.30723.18.camel@localhost.localdomain>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Sun, 2009-07-12 at 14:54 +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
wrote:
> On 22:42 Fri 10 Jul     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 10 July 2009 21:20:45 Shinya Kuribayashi wrote:
> > > Peter Tyser wrote:
> > > >> Before verifying MIPS builds, I'd like to make sure that why you take
> > > >> lib/$(ARCH)/ alternative, not $(ARCH)/lib/.  If there were any
> > > >> discussion on #IRC, is there any chance we could share the summary or
> > > >> decision to follow?
> > > >
> > > > There was no discussion, /lib/$(ARCH) just made more sense to me and it
> > > > was functionally a direct translation from lib_$(ARCH) to lib/$(ARCH).
> > > >
> > > > Using $(ARCH)/lib wouldn't clean up the top-level directory structure
> > > > much and would open a can of worms that I'm not prepared to deal with at
> > > > this time.  For example, if there was an architecture specific
> > >
> > > Oops, I wanted to say "arch/$(ARCH)/lib/", not $(ARCH)/lib/, sorry.
> > 
> > i thought that originally, but i dont care much either way.  having 
> > arch/$(ARCH)/ would line up with u-boot-v2 and the linux kernel though.
> > 
> > i dont understand needing a lib/ subdir under arch/$(ARCH)/ though.
> > 
> > > > While we're talking about it, I'd always thought it would be nice to
> > > > split out all the cmd_* files from common/ into their own command/
> > > > directory similar to u-boot-v2.
> > >
> > > Ack.  The directory structure in u-boot-v2 looks nice, at least, to me,
> > > anyway.
> I prefer the
> arch/$(ARCH)/lib
> so will could also move the cpu stuff there too

I like the Linux and u-boot-v2 directory layout too the more I think
about it too.  How about if I resend this series but with the final
directory structure looking like:

/arch/$(ARCH)/lib/<source files currently in lib_$(ARCH)

/lib/
	/<source files currently in lib_generic>
	/libfdt/
	/lzma/
	/lzo/

/examples/
	/api/
	/standalone/


That will lay the groundwork for moving additional files
into /arch/$(ARCH)/ down the road.  eg I think it would be nice to move
the directories in /cpu/* into their respective /arch/$(ARCH)/
directory, and possibly the /include/asm-$(ARCH) directories in the long
run.

What do others think of this?

Best,
Peter