From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shinya Kuribayashi Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:20:45 +0900 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 0/6] Clean up top-level directory structure In-Reply-To: <1247272852.32367.241.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1247241800-29059-1-git-send-email-ptyser@xes-inc.com> <4A57D6EE.1020601@pobox.com> <1247272852.32367.241.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4A57E8ED.3040604@pobox.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de 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. > directory, it would seem logical to put cpus of that $(ARCH) type in it > too, eg > ppc/ > lib/ > mpc8260 > mpc85xx/ > mpc86xx/ > > sh/ > lib/ > sh2/ > sh3/ > sh4/ > > ... > > My change was just meant to be an incremental improvement, but I could > see advantages to using the $(ARCH)/... structure if we wanted to make > larger changes. Anyway, I'd be curious to hear other's opinions about > other directory layouts. > > While we're talking about it, I'd always thought it would be nice to > split out all the cmd_* files from common/ into their own command/ > directory similar to u-boot-v2. Ack. The directory structure in u-boot-v2 looks nice, at least, to me, anyway. >> Please note that I agree with such cleanup, of course. I just would >> like to make sure that lib/$(ARCH)/ is an authorized policy or not. >> If authorized one, I'm fine. > > I was just scratching an itch, nothing official:) Got it. Thanks for the kind explanation,