[U-Boot-Users] arm SoC code in U-Boot.

[Ulf Samuelsson]

link: www.avrfreaks.net
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wolfgang Denk" <wd at denx.de>
To: "Peter Pearse" <Peter.Pearse at arm.com>
Cc: <u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net>; "Ulf Samuelsson" <ulf at atmel.com>; 
"Txema Lopez" <tlopez at aotek.es>; "Grant Likely" <grant.likely at secretlab.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] arm SoC code in U-Boot.


> In message <89A528FE6DB0FA44877BB2F05B84671805650CA4 at ZIPPY.Emea.Arm.com> 
> you wrote:
>>
>> I could live with cpu/freescale/imx. Presumably it would be built in
>> via the SOC value?
>
> Do we really need the "freescale" subdirectory here? Maybe
> cpu/arm_imx would be a shorter and more descriptive name?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>


I think it is a matter of taste.
You actually do not need to have any subdirectories in U-boot at all.
Some people prefer using a directory structure to hide information
which is of little interest to them

There seems to be shared code for PowerPCs and NIOS(2).
Do we want to create new subdirectories for every share, cluttering up 
"cpu"?

I think the likelyhood for shared code between different Freescale
PPC is higher than shared code between IBM and Freescale PPC.
Therefore a "freescale" directory could also contains shared PPC code.

Some people would like to have consistency
making it easy to find where things are located.

If you look at what is driving duplication, then you find
that the peripherals are either developed inside a semiconductor
company, or they are licensed from an IP provider.

It makes a lot of sense therefore to dedicate directories
to the providers of IP:
ARM is a provider, but so are also Freescale, Atmel and others.


Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson