On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Chris Tyler <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 12:04 -0600, Adam Miller wrote: > > RAM is a really good point, I think it will be in the ballpark of 256 > > (plus or minus a bit). Also, I'd like to open up the conversation > > about version of ARM we as a SIG want to support as the efforts start > > to ramp up while targeting popular devices. I think ARMv9 might be a > > little too aggressive but are there any devices that are still > > prominent that are ARMv5? Would it be possible (or even feasible) to > > maintain ARMv5, ARMv7, and ARMv9 in parallel and treat them as > > separate architectures? > > The ARM "Family" vs. "Architecture" numbering is wonky (and very > frustrating - larger numbers don't reliably mean newer, bigger, faster, > or better). The SheevaPlug uses an "ARM9E" family chip, which uses the > "ARMv5TEJ" architecture. ARMv5 is a needed current target for that > device and others. > > However, the popular Cortex chips use ARMv6M and ARMx7* architecture. Is > there enough performance difference to warrant targeting both > independently? And just the kernel, or userspace as well? > > I'd been pondering Adam's exact question. It seems that Ubuntu (not that we should or need to follow what they do) decided upon supporting ARMv7 and later at their UDS [1]. There's also some other points here [2]. They also discussed a number of other worthwhile points to do with device trees and bootloaders which I presume are all relevant for discussions about support of Fedora on ARM platforms. But generally I've ignorant about the pros and cons of supporting the different artchitectures and I know there's discussion over THUMB vs no THUMB compile options as well. Peter [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/364654/ [2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Mobile/ARMv7AndThumb
_______________________________________________ arm mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
