Sigh. It wasn't. It's a hypothetical possibility to help guide the decision of whether to classify a piece of code as "arm64" or "armv8".
-Scott On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 10:30 +0530, Mj Embd wrote: > When "64-bit ARMv9" was announced ? > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> > wrote: > On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 16:37 +0800, FengHua wrote: > > > > > > > -----原始邮件----- > > > 发件人: "Scott Wood" <scottw...@freescale.com> > > > 发送时间: 2013年9月17日 星期二 > > > 收件人: feng...@phytium.com.cn > > > 抄送: u-boot@lists.denx.de, tr...@ti.com, > albert.u.b...@aribaud.net, w...@denx.de, b45...@freescale.com > > > 主题: Re: [PATCH v10 1/6] core support of arm64 > > > > > > On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 16:08 +0800, feng...@phytium.com.cn > wrote: > > > > From: David Feng <feng...@phytium.com.cn> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Feng <feng...@phytium.com.cn> > > > > --- > > > > > > You've still got CONFIG_ARMV8 in places that should be > CONFIG_ARM64 > > > > I am hesitate to use CONFIG_ARM64 instead of CONFIG _ARMV8. > > I am not sure whether all the CONFIG_ARMV8 could be replaced > with CONFIG_ARM64 > > or CONFIG_ARMV8 and CONFIG_ARMV64 are both needed. > > I will take this into account in the next. > > > If it inherently relates to being 64-bit (including ABI > issues), use > CONFIG_ARM64. If it's something that is new in ARMv8 but > isn't > specifically due to 64-bitness (e.g. cache stuff, if it's > different from > ARMv7), and could reasonably be different in a 64-bit ARMv9, > then use > CONFIG_ARMV8. > > -Scott > > > > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > U-Boot@lists.denx.de > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot > > > > > > -- > -mj _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
