Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 08 Jul 2012 14:31:05 -0400 | From | Jon Masters <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port |
| |
On 07/08/2012 03:54 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> 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.
Let me rephrase that to avoid missunderstanding. I am the strongest advocate of the "aarch64" name on our end. Others disagreed with that, but when the tooling, kernel, and other stuff settled on the same uniform name, it was my understanding that this was de facto settled. However, it would be wrong to say there are not dissenting viewpoints.
My biggest fear here, however, is that we end up bikeshedding this to death, and we then have some use of one name, some of "arm64", and distros failing to agree on things like the correct triplet to use for the new architecture (we had some issues with this before). So, if we're going to argue over the name and make changes, let's do it now. There seems to be no value in the toolchain using one name, which is already upstream, and the kernel using another name.
Jon.
| |