[U-Boot] [STATUS] Heads-up: Reorganize directory structure

[Alessandro Rubini <rubini-list@gnudd.com>]

Graeme,
I reply to your messages since it gives somehow more information.

I'm now not really convinced that reorganizing board directories
would be a big step forward, although I still think it would be better.
Si, I'm not arguing strongly, just bringing a point of view.

Peter, Wolfgang, I'll try to do my homework and show how nhk8815/usb-s8815
would better share files when under cpu/, but I'm not sure to be able
to complete it before a week or so.

Graeme Russ:
> Almost - it is more like
> 
> board/
>  $VENDOR/
>    include/
>    common/
>    lib(?)/
>    <etc..>/
>    $BOARDA/
>    $BOARDB/
> 
> I really like this structure, particularly if the code under
> $VENDOR/[common, include, lib] is arch independent.

Yes, that would be good, if it was a common case. However,
arch-independent code is usually under drivers. See at91 and avr32 for
example: no common code under board/atmel/ . Even boards/freescale,
which has three architectures, has only MPC stuff in common/ (no arm
or coldfire files, checked by extracting the CONFIG_ symbols from
Makefile and grepping for them in include/configs)

> If a vendor develops a new board using a different CPU or SOC they
> can easily re-use all their pre-existing platform independent code
> for the new board.

In theory you are correct. In practice, such platform independent
material is using drivers/ .

> And then there is also
> 
> board/
>   $BOARDC
>   $BOARDD
> 
> I've never liked code existing on multiple depths like this.

Agreed.

> Maybe we move towards:
> 
> board/
>   $VENDOR
>     include/
>     lib/
>     $BOARDA/
>     $BOARDB/
>   $<cpu>_generic/
>     $BOARDC/
>     $BOARDD/

That's an option. But "$<cpu>_generic" is inferior to "cpu-$<cpu>". At
least listing will all "cpu-" directories nearby.

If there really was vendor-specific cross-platform code, I agree
something like you suggest is best.

/alessandro