On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 15:55 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > FengHua <feng...@phytium.com.cn> writes: > > >> FengHua <feng...@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 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
