From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756516Ab2GJROi (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:14:38 -0400 Received: from perches-mx.perches.com ([206.117.179.246]:34348 "EHLO labridge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753099Ab2GJROh (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:14:37 -0400 Message-ID: <1341940476.6118.150.camel@joe2Laptop> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port From: Joe Perches To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Ingo Molnar , Arnd Bergmann , Olof Johansson , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linus Torvalds , Russell King , Andrew Morton , Alan Cox Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:14:36 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20120710101018.GE15120@arm.com> References: <1341608777-12982-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <201207071927.13135.arnd@arndb.de> <20120710071023.GA10456@gmail.com> <20120710101018.GE15120@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 11:10 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:10:23AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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, [...] > > > > 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. Count me as one of the 1000s that think it's a poor name choice. I think it's a poor name for marketing purposes too. Best of luck with whatever is used.