On Thursday 15 July 2010 00:45:56 Michael Casadevall wrote: > > I suspect the other architecture licensees (Marvell, Qualcomm) might not > > be so enthusiastic about this naming... > > Seconded. Since this port will work on all ARM SoCs that meet the > minimal hardware requirements, it should not be named around a > specific vendor.
First, 'cortex' is not a vendor. it's a cpu family. It's not owned by Marvell or Qualcomm, but by ARM, if they are OK with us using the name, I don't see why the other companies would mind, esp. if they don't offer a cpu in that particular family. Our targets are Cortex A8/A9-class cpus, with at least vfpv3 and possibly NEON - we'll provide a separate repository with NEON binaries where that seems appropriate. So, if Marvell/Qualcomm do provide Cortex A8/A9-type cpus -I don't know really, I'm not following all cpu models from every company- then I don't see a problem. If not, then the port would probably not work on those cpus from these companies anyway. Plain 'armel' could/should be used in that case. > Something vendor neutral like "armfp", > "armel_hardfloat", etc. is much more appropriate (although we should > probably try to make it clear in the vendor name that you need > specific CPU features to fully support it). If 'cortex' for some reason becomes unsuitable, the next option is armelvfp - again to denote that the port is strictly for cpus that do include a vfp (as Matt said before in this list, armelhf though it sounds really nice, it still is not clear whether it supports vfp, fpa, etc.). Regards Konstantinos Margaritis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
