On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 08:29:14PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > Because of the issues listed below, merging the Thumb-2 support into > > the existing arch/arm files would clutter the existing code with > > macros like ARM, THUMB or W (for conditional compilation and the wide > > instruction format). The IT instruction is also not recognised by > > older toolchains and additional (assembler) macros would be needed, > > including support for the inline assembly. I therefore decided to > > create a separate arch/arm_t2 directory that shares a lot of code with > > the existing arch/arm. > > Hi Catalin. > Can you please share with us the strong arguments why another (third) > arm architecture are needed?
It's been my experience with 64-bit MIPS that starting off with a 2nd arch then eventually factoring out the differences and unifying things back into a single mips architecture was actually the easier road to go. Downside: this approach takes long term careful coding. It is hell with the kind of "code once and resuse never" style that's only too common in the embedded industry. Ralf - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
