Sigh. It wasn't. It's a hypothetical possibility to help guide the decision of whether to classify a piece of code as "arm64" or "armv8".
-Scott
On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 10:30 +0530, Mj Embd wrote:
When "64-bit ARMv9" was announced ?
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Scott Wood scottwood@freescale.com wrote: On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 16:37 +0800, FengHua wrote: > > > > -----原始邮件----- > > 发件人: "Scott Wood" scottwood@freescale.com > > 发送时间: 2013年9月17日 星期二 > > 收件人: fenghua@phytium.com.cn > > 抄送: u-boot@lists.denx.de, trini@ti.com, albert.u.boot@aribaud.net, wd@denx.de, B45370@freescale.com > > 主题: Re: [PATCH v10 1/6] core support of arm64 > > > > On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 16:08 +0800, fenghua@phytium.com.cn wrote: > > > From: David Feng fenghua@phytium.com.cn > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Feng fenghua@phytium.com.cn > > > --- > > > > You've still got CONFIG_ARMV8 in places that should be CONFIG_ARM64 > > I am hesitate to use CONFIG_ARM64 instead of CONFIG _ARMV8. > I am not sure whether all the CONFIG_ARMV8 could be replaced with CONFIG_ARM64 > or CONFIG_ARMV8 and CONFIG_ARMV64 are both needed. > I will take this into account in the next.
If it inherently relates to being 64-bit (including ABI issues), use CONFIG_ARM64. If it's something that is new in ARMv8 but isn't specifically due to 64-bitness (e.g. cache stuff, if it's different from ARMv7), and could reasonably be different in a 64-bit ARMv9, then use CONFIG_ARMV8. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot-- -mj