Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 08 Jul 2012 14:13:02 -0400 | From | Jon Masters <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port |
| |
On 07/08/2012 07:17 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Jon Masters (jcm@redhat.com) wrote: >> On 07/07/2012 03:27 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Saturday 07 July 2012, Olof Johansson wrote: >>> >>>>> ARM introduced AArch64 as part of the ARMv8 architecture >>>> >>>> With the risk of bikeshedding here, but I find the name awkward. How >>>> about just naming the arch port arm64 instead? It's considerably more >>>> descriptive in the context of the kernel. For reference, we didn't >>>> name ppc64, nor powerpc, after what the IBM/power.org marketing people >>>> were currently calling the architecture at the time either. >>> >>> I agree the name sucks, and I'd much prefer to just call it arm64 >>> as well. The main advantage of the aarch64 name is that it's the >>> same as the identifier in the elf triplet, and it makes sense to >>> keep the same name for all places where we need to identify the >>> architecture. This also includes the rpm and dpkg architecture names, >>> and the string returned by the uname syscall. If everything else >>> is aarch64, we should use that in the kernel directory too, but >>> if everyone calls it arm64 anyway, we should probably use that name >>> for as many things as possible. >> >> FWIW I actually really like the aarch64 name (but you know that already >> :) ). I think it clearly spells out that this is not just a 64-bit >> extension to the existing 32-bit ARM Architecture, it is a new (inspired >> by ARM) architecture. Implementations will also run in AArch32 state >> (A32 and T32), but it's not like x86->x86_64. > > It's one advantage is that it won't trigger the infinite number > of broken scripts out there that do something on arm*
Indeed. I believe that was another reason for the name choice, especially in the toolchain, but also in kernel/uname.
Jon.
| |