On Sat, 2012-07-07 at 19:27:12 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Saturday 07 July 2012, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > ARM introduced AArch64 as part of the ARMv8 architecture > > > > With the risk of bikeshedding here, but I find the name awkward. How > > about just naming the arch port arm64 instead? It's considerably more > > descriptive in the context of the kernel. For reference, we didn't > > name ppc64, nor powerpc, after what the IBM/power.org marketing people > > were currently calling the architecture at the time either. > > I agree the name sucks, and I'd much prefer to just call it arm64 > as well. The main advantage of the aarch64 name is that it's the > same as the identifier in the elf triplet, and it makes sense to > keep the same name for all places where we need to identify the > architecture. This also includes the rpm and dpkg architecture names, > and the string returned by the uname syscall. If everything else > is aarch64, we should use that in the kernel directory too, but > if everyone calls it arm64 anyway, we should probably use that name > for as many things as possible.
FWIW the dpkg architecture name will be arm64: <http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=dpkg/dpkg.git;a=commitdiff;h=7786b93> And I'd be happy to change the GNU triplet match in dpkg, if someone considered trying to get it renamed to something less unfortunate. thanks, guillem -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/