Am 18.06.2012 12:56, schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 18 June 2012 11:42, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >> Am 18.06.2012 11:31, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>> (Does architecture-specific separation make much sense in general? >>> Not all devices are architecture-specific. I'd have thought that >>> a functional split eg timer/serial/usb like the linux kernel layout >>> would be better.) >> >> Maybe you're misreading me? I was saying iff a device is specifically >> (not accidentally) for one target foo then it may/should be placed into >> hw/foo/ directory. > > Yes, I'm saying that seems like a confusing split, because a few > devices for target foo will be in hw/foo and a number more in hw/, > and there'll probably be cases where something in hw/foo has to > move out into hw/ when a new target comes along that happens to > reuse it. So rather than having hw/foo where foo == target-name, > I'm suggesting hw/foo where foo == kind-of-device. As you say > we've already moved a bit down this road with usb, for instance.
But the point is that hw/foo/ is required for the new Makefile system, so we have the empty folders anyway, whereas putting target-specific stuff into, e.g., hw/apic/ will not solve the dependency issue that I tracked down here. If you do have an automated solution to that, please spill it out. :) Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
