On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Wolfgang Denk<w...@denx.de> wrote: > In message <m24os18a3w....@ohwell.denx.de> you wrote: >> >> >> That being said, I think it >> >> would make sense to put the devkit8000 in either board/devkit8000/ or >> >> board/embedinfo/devkit8000 now as that is the "correct" place for it. >> > >> > Well, I just can't see what the advantage of this "correct" place >> > might be. So from the rule point of view, it might make sense, but >> > maybe we should adapt the rule, then? >> > >> > Looking at the TI stuff, it seems to me that a lot of (small? >> > different?) companies are using the same SoCs and doing boards with >> > these. Most of the U-Boot code is similar, then. But these companies >> > are doing only one or two boards. So it makes more sense to group >> > these boards based on the SoC (vendor), instead of the board vendor or >> > even worse the board name. >> >> Well actually (I think) we agreed on doing the board/vendor scheme. For >> example look at board/amcc - there are all the AMCC evalboards basically >> each one with a different SoC. Turning this around into board/<soc> >> would throw pieces all over the places, which is definitely not what we >> want. > > Correct. That's the cuirrent "official" definiiton, and so far I see > no reason to change it.
Ok, is there a official naming convention for the include/configs/*.h files and the *_config targets? Should they be grouped by CPU/SoC and/or vendor (Makefile/MAKEALL)? _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
