Peter Tyser wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-07-12 at 14:54 +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
> wrote:
>> On 22:42 Fri 10 Jul , Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Friday 10 July 2009 21:20:45 Shinya Kuribayashi wrote:
>>>> Peter Tyser wrote:
>>>>>> Before verifying MIPS builds, I'd like to make sure that why you take
>>>>>> lib/$(ARCH)/ alternative, not $(ARCH)/lib/. If there were any
>>>>>> discussion on #IRC, is there any chance we could share the summary or
>>>>>> decision to follow?
>>>>> There was no discussion, /lib/$(ARCH) just made more sense to me and it
>>>>> was functionally a direct translation from lib_$(ARCH) to lib/$(ARCH).
>>>>>
>>>>> Using $(ARCH)/lib wouldn't clean up the top-level directory structure
>>>>> much and would open a can of worms that I'm not prepared to deal with at
>>>>> this time. For example, if there was an architecture specific
>>>> Oops, I wanted to say "arch/$(ARCH)/lib/", not $(ARCH)/lib/, sorry.
>>> i thought that originally, but i dont care much either way. having
>>> arch/$(ARCH)/ would line up with u-boot-v2 and the linux kernel though.
>>>
>>> i dont understand needing a lib/ subdir under arch/$(ARCH)/ though.
>>>
>>>>> While we're talking about it, I'd always thought it would be nice to
>>>>> split out all the cmd_* files from common/ into their own command/
>>>>> directory similar to u-boot-v2.
>>>> Ack. The directory structure in u-boot-v2 looks nice, at least, to me,
>>>> anyway.
>> I prefer the
>> arch/$(ARCH)/lib
>> so will could also move the cpu stuff there too
>
> I like the Linux and u-boot-v2 directory layout too the more I think
> about it too. How about if I resend this series but with the final
> directory structure looking like:
>
> /arch/$(ARCH)/lib/<source files currently in lib_$(ARCH)
>
> /lib/
> /<source files currently in lib_generic>
> /libfdt/
> /lzma/
> /lzo/
>
> /examples/
> /api/
> /standalone/
>
>
> That will lay the groundwork for moving additional files
> into /arch/$(ARCH)/ down the road. eg I think it would be nice to move
> the directories in /cpu/* into their respective /arch/$(ARCH)/
> directory, and possibly the /include/asm-$(ARCH) directories in the long
> run.
>
> What do others think of this?
There were some discussions we'd better to reflect back on about this
topic.
I can't toss the URLs of them at the moment as I'm behind a firewall,
but these might help:
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:28:47 -0600
From: "Grant Likely" <grant.lik...@secretlab.ca>
To: uboot <u-boot-us...@lists.sourceforge.net>,
"Jon Loeliger" <j...@jdl.com>,
"Wolfgang Denk" <w...@denx.de>
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [RFC] u-boot migration to kconfig
and
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:27:38 +0200
From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagn...@jcrosoft.com>
To: <u-boot-us...@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [RFC] u-boot migration to kconfig
--
Shinya Kuribayashi
NEC Electronics
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
