[U-Boot] merge arm64 to arm
hi tom, hi albert, yes, it's right. the u-boot could be more uniformly and maintainable if merging armv8 to arm architecture. I will try to migrate arm64 to armv8 subarchitecture of arm. do you have any other advice?
Regards. David
FengHua fenghua@phytium.com.cn writes:
hi tom, hi albert, yes, it's right. the u-boot could be more uniformly and maintainable if merging armv8 to arm architecture. I will try to migrate arm64 to armv8 subarchitecture of arm. do you have any other advice?
Why? The architectures are vastly different, arm64 (aarch64) being only loosely inspired by the 32-bit arm. It is not like with x86/amd64 where a lot of code can be shared.
-----原始邮件----- 发件人: "Måns Rullgård" mans@mansr.com 发送时间: 2013年8月17日 星期六 收件人: FengHua fenghua@phytium.com.cn 抄送: u-boot@lists.denx.de, trini@ti.com, scottwood@freescale.com 主题: Re: merge arm64 to arm
FengHua fenghua@phytium.com.cn writes:
hi tom, hi albert, yes, it's right. the u-boot could be more uniformly and maintainable if merging armv8 to arm architecture. I will try to migrate arm64 to armv8 subarchitecture of arm. do you have any other advice?
Why? The architectures are vastly different, arm64 (aarch64) being only loosely inspired by the 32-bit arm. It is not like with x86/amd64 where a lot of code can be shared.
-- Måns Rullgård mans@mansr.com
Of course, with a seperated architecture the arm64 code will be clear and simple. when it merged with arm a few file should be duplicated with the name "_v8" appended and many macro switch should be added. but most of the code will be in armv8 directory which paralleled with armv7. it seems that this implementation are more nice.
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:32:43PM +0800, FengHua wrote:
-----????????????----- ?????????: "M??ns Rullg??rd" mans@mansr.com ????????????: 2013???8???17??? ????????? ?????????: FengHua fenghua@phytium.com.cn ??????: u-boot@lists.denx.de, trini@ti.com, scottwood@freescale.com ??????: Re: merge arm64 to arm
FengHua fenghua@phytium.com.cn writes:
hi tom, hi albert, yes, it's right. the u-boot could be more uniformly and maintainable if merging armv8 to arm architecture. I will try to migrate arm64 to armv8 subarchitecture of arm. do you have any other advice?
Why? The architectures are vastly different, arm64 (aarch64) being only loosely inspired by the 32-bit arm. It is not like with x86/amd64 where a lot of code can be shared.
-- M??ns Rullg??rd mans@mansr.com
Of course, with a seperated architecture the arm64 code will be clear and simple. when it merged with arm a few file should be duplicated with the name "_v8" appended and many macro switch should be added. but most of the code will be in armv8 directory which paralleled with armv7. it seems that this implementation are more nice.
Exactly. Most things will end up in arch/arm/cpu/armv8/ and we won't have to duplicate the "hook the arch up with the rest of U-Boot" code, which is C anyhow, for the most part.
FengHua fenghua@phytium.com.cn writes:
FengHua fenghua@phytium.com.cn writes:
hi tom, hi albert, yes, it's right. the u-boot could be more uniformly and maintainable if merging armv8 to arm architecture. I will try to migrate arm64 to armv8 subarchitecture of arm. do you have any other advice?
Why? The architectures are vastly different, arm64 (aarch64) being only loosely inspired by the 32-bit arm. It is not like with x86/amd64 where a lot of code can be shared.
Of course, with a seperated architecture the arm64 code will be clear and simple. when it merged with arm a few file should be duplicated with the name "_v8" appended and many macro switch should be added. but most of the code will be in armv8 directory which paralleled with armv7. it seems that this implementation are more nice.
ARMv8 defines both a 32-bit (aarch32) and a 64-bit (aarch64) instruction set. The naming you are suggesting would be misleading.
-----原始邮件----- 发件人: "Måns Rullgård" mans@mansr.com 发送时间: 2013年8月17日 星期六 收件人: FengHua fenghua@phytium.com.cn 抄送: "Måns Rullgård" mans@mansr.com, trini trini@ti.com, u-boot u-boot@lists.denx.de, "albert.u.boot" albert.u.boot@aribaud.net, scottwood scottwood@freescale.com 主题: Re: merge arm64 to arm
FengHua fenghua@phytium.com.cn writes:
FengHua fenghua@phytium.com.cn writes:
hi tom, hi albert, yes, it's right. the u-boot could be more uniformly and maintainable if merging armv8 to arm architecture. I will try to migrate arm64 to armv8 subarchitecture of arm. do you have any other advice?
Why? The architectures are vastly different, arm64 (aarch64) being only loosely inspired by the 32-bit arm. It is not like with x86/amd64 where a lot of code can be shared.
Of course, with a seperated architecture the arm64 code will be clear and simple. when it merged with arm a few file should be duplicated with the name "_v8" appended and many macro switch should be added. but most of the code will be in armv8 directory which paralleled with armv7. it seems that this implementation are more nice.
ARMv8 defines both a 32-bit (aarch32) and a 64-bit (aarch64) instruction set. The naming you are suggesting would be misleading.
aarch32 state is compatible with armv7. armv8 directory only provide aarch64 state support. as you said, it would be a little misleading.
-- Måns Rullgård mans@mansr.com
On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 15:55 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
FengHua fenghua@phytium.com.cn writes:
FengHua fenghua@phytium.com.cn writes:
hi tom, hi albert, yes, it's right. the u-boot could be more uniformly and maintainable if merging armv8 to arm architecture. I will try to migrate arm64 to armv8 subarchitecture of arm. do you have any other advice?
Why? The architectures are vastly different, arm64 (aarch64) being only loosely inspired by the 32-bit arm. It is not like with x86/amd64 where a lot of code can be shared.
Of course, with a seperated architecture the arm64 code will be clear and simple. when it merged with arm a few file should be duplicated with the name "_v8" appended and many macro switch should be added. but most of the code will be in armv8 directory which paralleled with armv7. it seems that this implementation are more nice.
ARMv8 defines both a 32-bit (aarch32) and a 64-bit (aarch64) instruction set. The naming you are suggesting would be misleading.
Yes, the asm files should be suffixed with "64" rather than "_v8".
-Scott
participants (4)
-
FengHua -
Måns Rullgård -
Scott Wood -
Tom Rini