From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751536Ab2GHHyM (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jul 2012 03:54:12 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41571 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751245Ab2GHHyL (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jul 2012 03:54:11 -0400 Message-ID: <4FF93C99.80203@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 03:54:01 -0400 From: Jon Masters Organization: Red Hat, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnd Bergmann CC: Olof Johansson , Catalin Marinas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port References: <1341608777-12982-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <201207071927.13135.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: <201207071927.13135.arnd@arndb.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/07/2012 03:27 PM, 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, and I'd much prefer to just call it arm64 > as well. The main advantage of the aarch64 name is that it's the > same as the identifier in the elf triplet, and it makes sense to > keep the same name for all places where we need to identify the > architecture. This also includes the rpm and dpkg architecture names, > and the string returned by the uname syscall. If everything else > is aarch64, we should use that in the kernel directory too, but > if everyone calls it arm64 anyway, we should probably use that name > for as many things as possible. FWIW I actually really like the aarch64 name (but you know that already :) ). I think it clearly spells out that this is not just a 64-bit extension to the existing 32-bit ARM Architecture, it is a new (inspired by ARM) architecture. Implementations will also run in AArch32 state (A32 and T32), but it's not like x86->x86_64. In our bikeshedding conversations pondering future Fedora support, we've pretty much settled on the aarch64 name now, and the hope is that we can also avoid providing 32-bit compatibility (multi-arch) by relying on virtualized guests for any 32-bit story. If that holds, we have some flexibility to e.g. go for 64K page size, etc. if we want. Jon.