From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Ungerer Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] m68k: propose move of platform coldfire Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:47:56 +1000 Message-ID: <53F5DC6C.9070603@uclinux.org> References: <1408590247-10875-1-git-send-email-gerg@uclinux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from icp-osb-irony-out1.external.iinet.net.au ([203.59.1.210]:49986 "EHLO icp-osb-irony-out1.external.iinet.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753955AbaHUL5Q (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:57:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-m68k-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Linux/m68k Hi Geert, On 21/08/14 17:30, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 5:04 AM, wrote: >> I propose that we move the arch/m68k/platform/coldfire directory to be >> directly under arch/m68k. >> >> The current platform/ structure was inhereted from the move of m68knommu, >> and is inconsistent with the existing m68k platforms (each having a >> directory under arch/m68k). >> >> Moving platform/coldfire is quite strait forward. The following patches do a >> move, and fix up the broken pathname comments. > That sounds fine to me. > >> This does leave the question of what to do with the other directories still >> under arch/m68k/platform, namely 68000 and 68360. Should they be moved in >> the same way as coldfire? > I think the 68*328 and 68360 SoC support can have their own directories, > as these are platforms. > > However, these directories also contain 68000 and 68360 CPU support, > which we may want to share with other platforms in the future, to support > 68000-based Amigas, Ataris, Macs, Suns, ... > > But as that's a problem to fix when someone is working on it, it's fine > for me to move these one level up, too. Thanks for the feedback. I'll prepare patches that move these too then. Regards Greg