From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shinya Kuribayashi Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:52:24 +0900 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [RFC] u-boot migration to kconfig In-Reply-To: References: <20070923213756.63C242405D@gemini.denx.de> <1190585597.7015.28.camel@elrond.atmel.sweden> <46F72FA3.8090906@ruby.dti.ne.jp> Message-ID: <46F75098.70803@ruby.dti.ne.jp> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Grant Likely wrote: > On 9/23/07, Shinya Kuribayashi wrote: >> Ulf Samuelsson wrote: >>> It would be more useful to collect all boards >>> using one specific chip in a single directory. >>> arch/arm//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 /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. > 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. Thanks, Shinya Kuribayashi P.S. IMO even SOCs are not related to CPU ore CPU core. >From SoC point of view, CPU is just a piece of component. But that's another story ;-)