Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:37:34 +0200 | From | Andreas Schweigstill <> | Subject | Re: RFC: rename arch/arm/mach-s3c2410 to arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx |
| |
Hi Russell!
Russell King schrieb: > Folk convinced me that the only thing which we should call "architecture" > is the CPU - so things like "PPC", "ARM", "i386" are architectures, and > not implementations of these (AT91RM9200, S3C2410).
And if we use ARM nomenclature there is also a difference between the architecture (e.g. v4, v4t, v5, ...) and the implementation (ARM7, ARM7T, ARM9T, Amulet, StrongARM, Xscale, ...) of the CPU core. So we have to distinguish between the core and the SoC/ASSP architecture. The register model is defined by the core architecture but the co-processors (MMU, CP15) by the implementation. And should we handle OMAP as a standard ARM9/10/11 implementation or another core? And should StrongARM be inherited from v4 or ARM8?
Does it make sense to reflect this also in the directory naming conventions? Hmmm, I am not sure. We could end with the complete ARM company's history.
With best regards Andreas Schweigstill
-- Dipl.-Phys. Andreas Schweigstill Schweigstill IT | Embedded Systems Schauenburgerstraße 116, D-24118 Kiel, Germany Phone: (+49) 431 5606-435, Fax: (+49) 431 5606-436 Mobile: (+49) 171 6921973, Web: http://www.schweigstill.de/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |