Il 02/07/2012 11:37, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto: > Il 02/07/2012 11:31, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >> On 2 July 2012 10:08, Igor Mitsyanko <i.mitsya...@samsung.com> wrote: >>> So, what's the consensus here, for now new devices go to >>> hw/arm/Makefile.objs while somebody moves all new and old not cpu-specific >>> devices (not just exynos-related) from hw/arm/Makefile.objs to >>> hw/Makefile.objs with one commit? Because having one RTC device compile >>> through hw/Makefile.objs while all other exynos devices are compiled through >>> hw/arm/Makefile.objs doesn't makes much sense. >> >> I don't want things moved piecemeal, especially not one file from >> a whole board model. >> >> I'd also like to see a nice clear summary of the ground rules first >> (ie how you decide which makefile / target / whatever a file should >> be in). At the moment I'm not really sure what the rules are, which >> means I can't properly review those bits of patches. > > For now nothing should change compared to the past, except that obj-y > should appear in hw/ARCH/Makefile.objs rather than Makefile.target. > This is because there is still no mechanism to guard the build of > ARM-only devices from hw/Makefile.objs. When Anthony's patch lands, we > can start moving files to hw/Makefile.objs using CONFIG_ARCH_ARM; I > understood Andreas is going to do that.
Small addendum: I think the idea should be to put source in hw/ARCH if it has a hard dependency on target-ARCH, otherwise we can leave it in hw/ and decide on a case-by-case basis. Personally, I believe it'd be best if board descriptions were moved to hw/ARCH, even if all the required hardware is in hw/ and even if the file can be moved from obj-y to hw-obj-y. However, this can be left open to later discussion, and is complicated by the fact that some boards (e.g. musicpal) include devices and machine models in the same file. Paolo
