On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 08:48:51AM -0700, k...@koi8.net wrote: > I also vote for moving _ALL_ the drivers (i2c, usb, net, etc.) to > appropriate directories under drivers/ no matter architecture specific they > are or not.
Seconded. The criteria should generally be whether the code interacts with the subsystem (as opposed to some isolated register poking to "turn on" a common logic block), with a fair bit of deference to the developer/maintainer's intuition rather than an unyielding rule (we have enough of those in u-boot). > This will make the tree more logical and one wouldn't have to chase say USB > driver all over the source tree. And when someone adds a new board, they may find that their "board-specific" driver code wasn't actually as board-specific as they thought if something very similar is sitting in the same directory they need to add it to, as opposed to having 100 copies of it hidden in the directories of other boards. > Also it is a first step to general overhaul that would allow for multiple > drivers support. Yes. We should get away from the model of having generic code call *the* USB/NAND/SATA/whatever driver which is chosen at link time. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
