On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:50:24PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> writes: > > > On 08/19/2013 01:33 PM, M?ns Rullg?rd 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.
Agreed, thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
