FengHua <[email protected]> writes: >> FengHua <[email protected]> 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. -- Måns Rullgård [email protected] _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
