On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:32:43PM +0800, FengHua wrote: > > > > > -----????????????----- > > ?????????: "M??ns Rullg??rd" <m...@mansr.com> > > ????????????: 2013???8???17??? ????????? > > ?????????: FengHua <feng...@phytium.com.cn> > > ??????: u-boot@lists.denx.de, tr...@ti.com, scottw...@freescale.com > > ??????: Re: merge arm64 to arm > > > > 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. > > > > -- > > M??ns Rullg??rd > > m...@mansr.com > > 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.
Exactly. Most things will end up in arch/arm/cpu/armv8/ and we won't have to duplicate the "hook the arch up with the rest of U-Boot" code, which is C anyhow, for the most part. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
