From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754809Ab2GRRZq (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:25:46 -0400 Received: from unicorn.mansr.com ([78.86.181.103]:39592 "EHLO unicorn.mansr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751749Ab2GRRZn convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:25:43 -0400 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Dennis Gilmore , Jon Masters , Joe Perches , Linus Torvalds , =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= , Ingo Molnar , Arnd Bergmann , Olof Johansson , "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" , Russell King , Andrew Morton , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port References: <201207071927.13135.arnd@arndb.de> <20120710071023.GA10456@gmail.com> <20120710101018.GE15120@arm.com> <20120717221839.GA4856@arm.com> <1342564536.1898.1.camel@joe2Laptop> <5006207D.1010708@jonmasters.org> <20120718102712.46b8d7ff@adria.ausil.us> <20120718171426.GA4240@arm.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:25:41 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20120718171426.GA4240@arm.com> (Catalin Marinas's message of "Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:14:26 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Catalin Marinas writes: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 04:27:12PM +0100, Dennis Gilmore wrote: >> El Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:33:33 -0400 >> Jon Masters escribió: >> > On 07/17/2012 06:35 PM, Joe Perches wrote: >> > > On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 23:18 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> > > >> > >> The uname will still report >> > >> "aarch64" to match the compiler triplet and also avoid confusion of >> > >> existing 32-bit ARM scripts that simply check for "arm*" in the >> > >> machine name. >> >> that means that the yum base arch will need to be aarch64 and the arch >> used in rpm will be aarch64 also. its throwing something weird and >> confusing right in the face of users. I urge you to change it all to >> arm64 just changing the directory in the kernel is pointless as it still >> exposes all the weirdness of the name to users and will result in a >> large amount of education and a constant stream of the same question >> "Where do i find the arm64 bits?" until such time as the users learn >> that arm64 is aarch64. All the tooling uses "uname -m" to determine the >> package architecture. > > The directory name change is just to avoid some word duplication in > arch/aarch64/. It can be a64 (as per the ISA) or aa64 or whatever else. > The "arm64" got most votes so far. I still prefer "aarch64" for > consistency but I'm can change the directory name, it doesn't matter > much. > > As for the "aarch64" name, whether we like it were not, it was chosen by > ARM Ltd to describe the new execution mode. It is one of the few > constants in the changing world of architecture versions and CPU > numbers. It's also a clear separation from the multitude of ARM* names > which I agree, is confusing (and, BTW, we had ARM6 processors as well). > > People that have been involved with this architecture don't find the > name impossible (and not all of them are based in Cambridge ;). It may > not be as aesthetic and easy to pronounce as "arm64" but you get used to > it. I personally find it easier to pronounce (and type) than "x86_64". > > Just to be clear, I'm not trying to defend the "beauty" of this name (I > have my own opinion) but we spend too much time arguing about it. This > name has implications beyond the technical arguments of some script or > another and it will be found in all the technical documents produced by > ARM Ltd (including the next ARM Architecture Reference Manual). Maybe it would help if someone explained _why_ the aarch64 name was chosen. Assuming it wasn't handed down by a supreme being, there has to be some reasoning behind the choice. -- Måns Rullgård mans@mansr.com