[U-Boot-Users] [RFC] u-boot migration to kconfig

Ulf Samuelsson
2007-09-24T08:18:54Z

m?n 2007-09-24 klockan 14:52 +0900 skrev Shinya Kuribayashi:
> Grant Likely wrote:
> > On 9/23/07, Shinya Kuribayashi <skuribay@ruby.dti.ne.jp> wrote:
> >> Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> >>> It would be more useful to collect all boards
> >>> using one specific chip in a single directory.
> >>> arch/arm/<chip>/board.
> >> This is too tight, isn't it?
> >> Strictly speaking, boards are not related to chips (at least for me).
> >> So I'll vote +1 for Jean's.
> >
> > Just to throw a wrench in the works, what about boards like the Xilinx
> > ML403 which can be *either* PowerPC or MicroBlaze. :-)
>
> I wanted to note doing <chip>/board is not much convinient
> from the technical point of view.
>
> As ML403, NEC also has the platform board on which different
> CPUs or different ARCHs are available.
>
And you today maintain everything supporting this in
a single board directory? (not subdirectories within a directory)

There is nothing to stop you from doing
arch/ppc/ML403
arch/microblaze/ML403
board/vendor/xilinx - Common files

> > I still think sticking with the existing board/ directory (but perhaps
> > organizing it better) makes the most sense. Each board directory can
> > pull in whatever cpu/soc support it needs.
>
> So fully Agreed. I should have voted +1 for Wolfgang's.
> Thanks for your clarification with a concrete example.
>
BR
Ulf Samuelsson