[U-Boot] Rules for board/* directory, was: [PATCH v3] Adding support for DevKit8000

[Frederik Kriewitz]

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Wolfgang Denk<wd at denx.de> wrote:

> In message <m24os18a3w.fsf at 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)?