Patrick McNamara wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Petter Urkedal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 11:05:41 AM > Subject: [Open-graphics] Memory Controller > > <snip> > >> Is it okay to commit the current work to Subversion? I can use >> rtl/mem_ctl/pnp (pipelined non-programmable) or the like, in case >> there'll be more implementations. >> > > > > I'm certainly not the keeper of the SVN repository, but this does come > closer to my day job so I'll toss in my thoughts. I would suggest we go > ahead and just put it at rtl/mem_ctl. First implementation becomes the > default for the time being. People making functional changes can do so on > branches of the code base. Should we get to the point where we have to > viable memory controller options, we can re-arrange the directory and merge > the second, or third etc, verison back down to the main branch. >
Sorry, I committed before reading your mail. We should maybe have a policy for how to arrange the source tree. Maybe even some common makefile rules. If I may extrapolate what you said, I'd suggest then that we keep each core in a subdirectory directly under rtl, and if there are two implementations of, say, a memory controllers, they just have to be named differently (mem_ctl, ddrsdram_ctl, mem_ctrl_johndoe, ...). Does that sound right? In any case, we can rename my implementation to mem_ctl or mem_ctl_npi. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
