Messages in this thread | | | From | Måns Rullgård <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port | Date | Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:21:42 +0100 |
| |
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:10:23AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> * Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> 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, [...] >> >> 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.
FWIW, I'd prefer naming the directory either arm64 or armv8 for a few reasons:
- Those are the names people actually use to refer to the architecture - They are more descriptive. - I think the official name is rather silly.
Note, these are my personal opinions.
-- Måns Rullgård mans@mansr.com -- 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/
| |