From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert ARIBAUD Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 08:42:27 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 0/21] ARM: start to move SoC code into arch/arm/mach-* In-Reply-To: References: <1422166283-20822-1-git-send-email-yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> <20150201040217.03b74a23@lilith> <20150201111144.3d30aa1a@lilith> Message-ID: <20150203084227.1333c765@lilith> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hello Simon, On Sun, 1 Feb 2015 09:23:05 -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Albert, > [...] > > I think the ARM core name is a convenient way of splitting things up > and has served us well. But now the common elements are more at the > SOC level. Yes the idea of arch/arm/soc/mach-... is more pure from a > hierarchical point of view, but arch/arm/mach-... would be my > preference. I feel that arch/arm is underused now, and U-Boot is > growing so we should try to 'balance' the source tree, making sure > each level of the hierarchy justifies itself with enough > files/subdirs, etc. > > [...] Can't say I like directory entry count as a criterion for structuring a source code tree, but apart from that nitpick, the rest of your and others' explanations (skipped here for clarity) makes sense. Oh well, I'll have to learn to live without a soc subdir. :) Amicalement, -- Albert.