At Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:50:28 +0000,
Ben Harris wrote:
> 
> In article <200102160652.f1G6qVx00887@lets.ichiro.org> you write:
> >this code is not arrangement.
> >I have plan that cleanup hpcarm/sa and bring to under sys/arch/arm.
> 
> I'm far from certain that's the right thing to do.  sys/arch/arm is
> (currently) for code shared between all ARM systems.  As far as I can see,
> hpcarm/sa just contains SA11x0-specific code.

Hmm, are there any better place to put driver codes for CPU-integrated
IO peripherals?
I think this would be either (1)sys/arch/arm32/sa or (2)sys/dev/saip.
For (1), I'm not sure referring sys/arch/arm32 from outside is acceptable.
For (2), I'm not sure putting such highly arch-dependent code under
sys/dev is the right thing.

> You also seem to be duplicating a lot of arm32 code, but presumably you'll
> clean that up before committing it.

I started to porting to my jornada720 two months ago, using
sys/arch/arm32/{hpcarm,sa} hierarchy.
I must admit using sys/arch/arm32/hpcarm was quite awkward.
arm32 code's dependency to hardware models is scattered around the
tree and quite difficult to reuse for hpcarm.

Cleaing up the code must be done eventually, but I'm afraid this
cannot be performed in a timely manner without integrating to the
source tree first.  I propose the following scenario.

1. Move SA11x0 peripheral driver code to somewhere other than
 sys/arch/hpcarm/sa, to make sharing the driver code between hpcarm
 and arm32 possible.
2. Integrate hpcarm code and SA11x0 driver code into the tree.
3. Start cleaning up common codes between arm32 and hpcarm.
 I think this should be done after the integration, as cleaning up
 will certainly require to change arm32 code and will need some
 discussion with arm32 people.

Any thoghts?
--
IWAMOTO Toshihiro