Rename `library` to `common/verilog`

[mithro]

I think it makes more sense for the common verilog code under library be moved to common/verilog.

We have XML stuff under common/xml.

(It also might make sense to move make to common/cmake too?)

[mithro]

@litghost @elmsfu Thoughts?

[litghost]

I don't think moving everything under common is helpful, it adds hierarchy where one isn't really required.

[litghost]

More specifically, does common/xml have anything to do with common/verilog? No, then why put them in a tree together?

[mithro]

@litghost library is just a generic name. It should have verilog in its name somewhere?

[mithro]

It's also good to have a clean top level in the hierarchy. I would suggest we want to try and keep it to one per architecture and then a couple of others.

[elms]

I think common/verilog is better than library. But maybe @litghost has a point in that. Do we want common to be a bag of part?. Maybe shared_verilog or verilog_lib but we also don't want to promote everything to top level directory. common/xml should probably also be xml_schemas

[mithro]

I was using common to mean "usable for all architectures".

[litghost]

I do think verilog_lib is better than library which I believe is better than common/verilog. I think a good example of something that is fine is tests. I don't think tests should move under common.