From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shinya Kuribayashi Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:38:35 +0900 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 0/6] Clean up top-level directory structure In-Reply-To: <1247584843.30723.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1247241800-29059-1-git-send-email-ptyser@xes-inc.com> <1247272852.32367.241.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A57E8ED.3040604@pobox.com> <200907102242.07717.vapier@gentoo.org> <20090712125427.GD21713@game.jcrosoft.org> <1247584843.30723.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4A5D4F3B.7070501@necel.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: > On Sun, 2009-07-12 at 14:54 +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > wrote: >> On 22:42 Fri 10 Jul , Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On Friday 10 July 2009 21:20:45 Shinya Kuribayashi wrote: >>>> 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 $(ARCH)/lib/, sorry. >>> i thought that originally, but i dont care much either way. having >>> arch/$(ARCH)/ would line up with u-boot-v2 and the linux kernel though. >>> >>> i dont understand needing a lib/ subdir under arch/$(ARCH)/ though. >>> >>>>> While we're talking about it, I'd always thought it would be nice to >>>>> split out all the cmd_* files from common/ into their own command/ >>>>> directory similar to u-boot-v2. >>>> Ack. The directory structure in u-boot-v2 looks nice, at least, to me, >>>> anyway. >> I prefer the >> arch/$(ARCH)/lib >> so will could also move the cpu stuff there too > > I like the Linux and u-boot-v2 directory layout too the more I think > about it too. How about if I resend this series but with the final > directory structure looking like: > > /arch/$(ARCH)/lib/ > /lib/ > / > /libfdt/ > /lzma/ > /lzo/ > > /examples/ > /api/ > /standalone/ > > > That will lay the groundwork for moving additional files > into /arch/$(ARCH)/ down the road. eg I think it would be nice to move > the directories in /cpu/* into their respective /arch/$(ARCH)/ > directory, and possibly the /include/asm-$(ARCH) directories in the long > run. > > What do others think of this? There were some discussions we'd better to reflect back on about this topic. I can't toss the URLs of them at the moment as I'm behind a firewall, but these might help: Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:28:47 -0600 From: "Grant Likely" To: uboot , "Jon Loeliger" , "Wolfgang Denk" Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [RFC] u-boot migration to kconfig and Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:27:38 +0200 From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD To: Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [RFC] u-boot migration to kconfig -- Shinya Kuribayashi NEC Electronics