On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 09:10 -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > On 08/19/2013 09:01 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote: > > Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> writes: > > > >> On 08/19/2013 08:32 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote: > >>> If there's a lot of code shared between these architectures, > >>> why is it in an architecture-specific directory in the first > >>> place? Maybe the proper solution is to move it out of arch/arm > >>> rather than moving code for an entirely different architecture > >>> in there. > >> > >> We are working in that direction (and one of the requests was to > >> hook into that code, rather than duplicate things). Think of it > >> as "all ARM Ltd licensed cores" not "all 32bit-only ARM cores". > > > > Why does it matter which company designed it? By that reasoning, > > you'd put i960 (were it supported) under arch/x86 because it's from > > Intel. > > Probably because I didn't get the "it's a whole new unrelated to > everything before world over there!" memo.
Probably because there is still quite a bit of similarity to older ARM. There's more to it than just the ISA, and even that isn't *that* much more different than x86 versus x86_64. i960 is a bad analogy. It's often possible to turn arm32 asm into arm64 asm with some search and replace and minor manual fixups. > Seriously tho, our > directory structure is different from the kernel and it seems like > things might look cleaner this way. If it doesn't, well, I'll admit > to being wrong and we'll go back to a split arch directory. As I noted before, in Linux a bunch of other architectures started with a separate arch for 64-bit (x86, sparc, ppc...), and all of them eventually merged. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
