On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 18:54, Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 2019-02-13 18:14, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 00:13, Alistair Francis <alistai...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I know the other RISC-V files don't do it, but this should go in the > >> hw/gpio directory instead of hw/riscv. > > > > It might be nice to move those existing riscv devices into > > their proper places at some point: should be a fairly easy > > cleanup patch if somebody wants to take it on. (Advice > > on what should live where available on request.) > > If devices only work on riscv, they should IMHO stay in hw/riscv/. I > think hw/gpio/ and friends should primarily be used if a device is > shared between architectures. If they stay in hw/riscv/ it is way easier > to match the devices with wildcards in the MAINTAINERS file. Just my > 0.02 € only, of course.
This is not the way we generally arrange the source tree, at least not the parts I'm familiar with. The rule of thumb I use is that devices of type X go in hw/X, and hw/$ARCH is only for board models and SoC container objects. I think the model for this is the Linux kernel, which splits drivers for devices into directories by device family, rather than putting them all in arch/whatever. A split that puts all the architecture-specific device models in hw/$ARCH has the significant disadvantage that it would put a huge number of files in hw/arm ... (More generally, I don't think the exact way we split the source files between directories matters much, but I do think it helps if we try to be consistent about it.) thanks -- PMM
