On 25.01.2013, at 14:51, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 25.01.2013, at 14:40, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On 25 January 2013 13:37, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >>> On 25.01.2013, at 14:33, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> On 25 January 2013 12:49, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >>>>> Am 25.01.2013 11:43, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>>>> You so far refused to have new SoCs/devices put in hw/arm/. Doing so >>>>> does keep consistency but creates more work moving them later. >>>> >>>> I haven't *refused*. I just haven't seen a consensus about what >>>> we want the filesystem layout to be, in the absence of which I >>>> haven't seen any great reason to change from the current setup. >>>> If we have that consensus then fine, we can move things around. >>> >>> I don't care which way we go (everything in hw/ or split into >>> subdirs), but the current state where some logically depending >>> pieces are in hw/ and others are in hw/foo just plain sucks. >>> >>> Since you don't have that problem, you can just ignore this patch >>> for arm. It's really a cleanup for me so that I stay sane :). >> >> Well, I do care, because we should be aiming for some consistency >> across architectures, whether we do that by moving more files >> into hw/$arch/ or by moving the handful of files and random >> Makefile.objs out of hw/$arch/... > > Sure, how do we reach that consensus? Call in the quorum of the 13 tribes? :)
Or in other words: Today every maintainer decides himself. This is why we have hw/pci, hw/dataplane, etc. IMHO architectures are no different than other subtrees. Alex
