From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757943Ab2GNJau (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Jul 2012 05:30:50 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:58440 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752194Ab2GNJas (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Jul 2012 05:30:48 -0400 Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:30:32 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Ingo Molnar , Arnd Bergmann , Olof Johansson , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linus Torvalds , Russell King , Andrew Morton , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port Message-ID: <20120714093032.GA23316@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1341608777-12982-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <201207071927.13135.arnd@arndb.de> <20120710071023.GA10456@gmail.com> <20120710101018.GE15120@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120710101018.GE15120@arm.com> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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