-----Original Message----- From: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Scott Wood Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 1:23 AM To: Dennis Gilmore Cc: trini@ti.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de; fenghua@phytium.com.cn Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3 0/5] arm64 patch
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 23:32 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 21:47:09 +0800 fenghua@phytium.com.cn wrote:
From: David Feng fenghua@phytium.com.cn
*** BLURB HERE *** Changes for v3: - rewrite cache.S and exception.S that partly originated from linux kernel, so the license should be ok. - according to scott wood's advice, make the fdt 64bit initrd start address support a seperate patch.
David Feng (5): core support of arm64 board support of arm64 arch support 1 of arm64 arch support 2 of arm64 64bit initrd start address support
nitpick but the arch is aarch64 not arm64
powerpc is Power Architecture these days but we still call it powerpc. arm64 is a sensible name that doesn't reduce the meaningful part of the name (excluding the word size suffix) down to a single character.
Arm64 seems more simple and sensible and in-line with the naming convention used across linux (arch/arm64). I remember reading Linus's comments in favor of keeping a arm64 naming convention in the past (instead of Armv8 or AArch64). Here is that mail thread for reference:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/15/133
Regards, Bhupesh