Re: Location of PIC modules

[Michael Lorenz <macallan%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

On May 21, 2008, at 12:55, Tim Rightnour wrote:

> On 21-May-2008 Michael Lorenz wrote:
> > I think port-specific code should live in port-specific directories.
> > Frankly,  don't see how lumping them all together would ease
> > maintenance - quite the opposite actually, it would just add clutter.
>
> It occurred to me that it's really easy to forget that one or more  
> of them
> exist when making a change that has to be reflected in all the  
> different PIC's.
> It's also slightly easier to look at all the different ones when  
> writing a new
> one if they are all in one place.

Changes like that would have to be discussed anyway, when everyone  
agrees I'd say commit and let the respective portmasters which  
actually have the hardware deal with the fallout in their drivers.

> No major technical reason for it, just that it seems more organized  
> to me that
> way.  I'm not set in stone on it, so I thought it would be good to  
> put it out
> there.

Heh, I disagree for exactly the same reason ;)
( and nothing's set in stone here either - I don't have strong  
feelings about PIC drivers' locations but I don't see any compelling  
reason to move them around )

have fun
Michael

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)

iQEVAwUBSDRnK8pnzkX8Yg2nAQJnYgf/SZ1bKxF9oNzb6z9X3gbItu7O74L2+c+U
0nmyiX5llk6C7T6X/kRIFRAb15dr2bjJTx3sdmi00g3NKXc/L7hWfAFoWZrftFiQ
fspBXtMCAbFWF0ln+6b6s2pQ7a5du276+ckLqMN0s4FKYudfq5H1X32FOelCwSS6
XOcLoe7w44Jy5tp2KwW44m/mCWcf5a0CZKIYQIVh9SjUMspPSLy43Z2wPEcXuuMS
uo3m99sLfQEJFA4+onUCGNs5dWzYoT5ELQZYrcPK2JHE5e1hZg6cMG3HCY3ws/h9
2mONa/mAEec5e5T8dWfVtJpn7+n9UPkFPDanR9iYNZc2VsSmxL4EaQ==
=Rppx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----