lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port
    Hi!

    > > > > 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, [...]
    > >
    > > So why not change it now, when it only bothers a few dozen
    > > people and it is only present in 36 patches? Why go full steam
    > > ahead to annoy thousands of people with it and why spread the
    > > naming madness to thousands of commits?
    >
    > Changing the arch/ dir name is easy at this point. My preference is for
    > consistency with the official name (that cannot be changed) and the gcc
    > triplet. I also don't think it annoys thousands of people, most don't
    > really care. The few reactions I've seen is pretty much because people
    > were expecting arm64 and it came as something else.

    I guess I'm 3/1000 now... Anyway, gcc triplet can be changed, and
    official name does not seem to matter.

    > > > Agreed. It's clear from the code that it started out as a copy
    > > > of the 32 bit ARM code base, which I think was a mistake, but
    > > > it has also moved on since then and many areas of the 64 bit
    > > > code are now much cleaner because they don't have to worry
    > > > about breaking legacy code. We're also more flexible with
    > > > trying out stuff without having to worry about breaking some
    > > > 10 year old board code.
    > >
    > > Just for the record, you guys are repeating all the same
    > > arguments that led to the x86_64 fork a decade ago...
    >
    > As I stated already, comparing AArch64 to x86_64 is not right. So even
    > if the arguments may look the same, the context is *different*. AArch64
    > is *not* an extension to the AArch32 mode.

    Is it possible to boot 32-bit OS on aarch64 machine?

    IOW, is it compatible in supervisor mode, too?
    Pavel
    --
    (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
    (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-07-14 12:21    [W:4.212 / U:0.352 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site