> -----原始邮件-----
> 发件人: "Måns Rullgård" <m...@mansr.com>
> 发送时间: 2013年8月17日 星期六
> 收件人: FengHua <feng...@phytium.com.cn>
> 抄送: "Måns Rullgård" <m...@mansr.com>, trini <tr...@ti.com>, u-boot
> <u-boot@lists.denx.de>, "albert.u.boot" <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net>,
> scottwood <scottw...@freescale.com>
> 主题: Re: merge arm64 to arm
>
> FengHua <feng...@phytium.com.cn> writes:
>
> >> 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> ARMv8 defines both a 32-bit (aarch32) and a 64-bit (aarch64) instruction
> set. The naming you are suggesting would be misleading.
>
aarch32 state is compatible with armv7. armv8 directory only provide aarch64
state support.
as you said, it would be a little misleading.
> --
> Måns Rullgård
> m...@mansr.com
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
