> -----Original Message----- > From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de] > On Behalf Of Scott Wood > Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 1:23 AM > To: Dennis Gilmore > Cc: tr...@ti.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de; feng...@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 > > feng...@phytium.com.cn wrote: > > > > > From: David Feng <feng...@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 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
