Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> writes: > On 08/19/2013 01:33 PM, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> writes: > [snip] >>> i960 is a bad analogy. It's often possible to turn arm32 asm >>> into arm64 asm with some search and replace and minor manual >>> fixups. >> >> Only if the original uses none of the distinguishing features of >> ARM like predicated instructions or variably shifted operands. >> Once you limit yourself to the remaining basic operations, every >> (RISC) architecture looks the same. > [snip] >> AArch64 of course shares certain non-ISA aspects with AArch32. >> Page table formats and other architecturally defined system control >> features are the same, and code for managing these things should of >> course be shared. Some other features, e.g. exception handling, >> are different enough that sharing code is probably difficult. >> >> There is a tendency to see arm64/aarch64 as yet another 64-bit >> extension of a 32-bit architecture, which it is not. Assuming that >> software support will or can follow the model used by the others >> mentioned is thus a mistake. > > We don't have lots of hand-crafted assembly, and what we do, we > largely have split out already into the cpu directories. I really > think we just need to try this and see how it goes.
Fine, let's see what it ends up looking like. That said, please consider naming things in a way that armv8 does not imply 64-bit. -- Måns Rullgård m...@mansr.com _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
