linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Benjamin Delagoutte <BDE@teamlog.com>
To: Josh Boyer <jdub@us.ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:58:15 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1156424295.19482.11.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1156423796.5640.23.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com>

Le jeudi 24 août 2006 à 07:49 -0500, Josh Boyer a écrit :
> On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 05:38 -0700, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > ppc = 32bit.
> > powerpc= 64bit.
> > Correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> Yes, you're wrong.  Some 32 bit boards are also under arch/powerpc now.
> 
> >  
> > I am not sure why community didn't adopt the name ppc and ppc64 just
> > like ia-32 and ia64.
> 
> They did originally.
> 
> The new direction is to have everything under arch/powerpc, both 32 and
> 64 bit.  The reason arch/ppc still exists is because some 32 bit
> platforms have not been fully migrated to the requirements to be merged
> into arch/powerpc.  Namely, the code has to boot from an OpenFirmware
> like flattened device tree.  The PPC 4xx family of processors, as an
> example, does not do this yet though there is work going on to adapt it.

I'm currently working on a PPC 405 based developement card. Does it mean
I have to work using the arch/ppc tree ? 

What about the includes ? Do I have to use only include/asm-ppc or are
include/asm-powerpc necessary as well ?

> Eventually, arch/ppc will go away and all of PowerPC will be under
> arch/powerpc.  That's the goal anyway.
> 
> josh
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
> Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded

  reply	other threads:[~2006-08-24 12:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-08-24 10:28 ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc Benjamin Delagoutte
2006-08-24 12:38 ` Parav Pandit
2006-08-24 12:49   ` Josh Boyer
2006-08-24 12:58     ` Benjamin Delagoutte [this message]
2006-08-24 13:07       ` Josh Boyer
2006-08-24 13:26         ` Matt Porter
2006-08-24 13:23       ` Matt Porter
2006-09-15 23:06         ` Shawn Jin
2006-09-15 23:23           ` Josh Boyer
2007-06-28  1:14             ` Kumar Gala
2006-08-24 12:58     ` Parav Pandit
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-06-27 21:41 Bizhan Gholikhamseh (bgholikh)
2007-06-28  1:20 ` Kumar Gala
2007-06-28  7:44   ` Erik Christiansen
2007-06-28  8:36     ` Erik Christiansen
2007-06-29  3:15       ` Kumar Gala
2007-07-01  1:07   ` Josh Boyer
2007-06-28  2:30 ` Bhupender Saharan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1156424295.19482.11.camel@localhost \
    --to=bde@teamlog.com \
    --cc=jdub@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).