On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:44:29PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 09:35:27PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Do you *really* think that all of the 32-bit ARM code should > > essentially be thrown away when going to 64-bit ARM, that > > patches can only touch arch/arm64/ + drivers/ or the highway? > > Definitely not, I don't think anyone claimed this. The 32-bit ARM code > will have the same important place for a very long time, ARM Ltd isn't > withdrawing support for this (it's the main revenue generator). I expect > to see many new 32-bit platforms to appear, MP systems, big.little > configurations etc. If there is need for bigger physical address space, > LPAE support (even with its drawbacks) is still the preferred choice for > mobile systems.
Just to be clear in case it doesn't look aligned with Arnd's comment. I'm referring to the 32-bit ARM port - it has the same important place as before, nothing from the 32-bit architecture code is thrown away (over time, we may want to clean up old architecture versions but that's a normal thing). How the 32-bit ARM SoC is refactored and maintained it's up to the arm-soc team and they are doing a great job. -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
