Default machine include placements

[Ben Dooks]

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:32:16AM +0000, Daniel Silverstone wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:05:47AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > The first question is about adding include/mach directories to
> > > eitehr plat-s5p or plat-samsung to mop up the files that keep
> > > getting repeated (since the plat-* directories are processed after
> > > the machine directory includes the mach-xxx are still free to overide
> > > these as necessary)
> > > 
> > > The second question is whether some of these files should have defaults
> > > in arch/arm/include? I think this might be less useful as build failures
> > > for new ports ensure that at-least these files are thought about
> > 
> > No - doing this means it's harder to find out what's going on.  Rather
> > than being able to look in arch/arm/mach-*/include for the relevant
> > mach header file and know you've got the right one, you have to instead
> > consider whether the one you're using is the one found in
> > arch/arm/mach-*/include/mach, arch/arm/plat-*/include/mach or
> > arch/arm/include/mach.
> > 
> > Having multiple places where include files can live is a nightmare; you
> > only have to look at glibc to know that - where you have to search the
> > entire source looking for the header file you want.
> 
> As a suggestion; how about one of symbolic links; or headers of the form:
> 
> /* arch/arm/mach-s5pc100/include/mach/foo.h
>  *
>  */
> 
> #include <plat-samsung/include/mach/generic-foo.h>

We do a bit of #include <plat/xxx-base.h> already for some things.

The 'empty' headers always seme to end up catching more copyright
statement than the space they end up saving.

Not sure how git deals with symlinks, and I think this will just leave
us a mess on systems that don't really understand symlinks.

-- 
Ben

Q:      What's a light-year?
A:      One-third less calories than a regular year.