Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port

From: Måns Rullgård
Date: Wed Jul 18 2012 - 13:25:40 EST

Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 04:27:12PM +0100, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>> El Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:33:33 -0400
>> Jon Masters <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
>> > On 07/17/2012 06:35 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 23:18 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> The uname will still report
>> > >> "aarch64" to match the compiler triplet and also avoid confusion of
>> > >> existing 32-bit ARM scripts that simply check for "arm*" in the
>> > >> machine name.
>> that means that the yum base arch will need to be aarch64 and the arch
>> used in rpm will be aarch64 also. its throwing something weird and
>> confusing right in the face of users. I urge you to change it all to
>> arm64 just changing the directory in the kernel is pointless as it still
>> exposes all the weirdness of the name to users and will result in a
>> large amount of education and a constant stream of the same question
>> "Where do i find the arm64 bits?" until such time as the users learn
>> that arm64 is aarch64. All the tooling uses "uname -m" to determine the
>> package architecture.
> The directory name change is just to avoid some word duplication in
> arch/aarch64/. It can be a64 (as per the ISA) or aa64 or whatever else.
> The "arm64" got most votes so far. I still prefer "aarch64" for
> consistency but I'm can change the directory name, it doesn't matter
> much.
> As for the "aarch64" name, whether we like it were not, it was chosen by
> ARM Ltd to describe the new execution mode. It is one of the few
> constants in the changing world of architecture versions and CPU
> numbers. It's also a clear separation from the multitude of ARM* names
> which I agree, is confusing (and, BTW, we had ARM6 processors as well).
> People that have been involved with this architecture don't find the
> name impossible (and not all of them are based in Cambridge ;). It may
> not be as aesthetic and easy to pronounce as "arm64" but you get used to
> it. I personally find it easier to pronounce (and type) than "x86_64".
> Just to be clear, I'm not trying to defend the "beauty" of this name (I
> have my own opinion) but we spend too much time arguing about it. This
> name has implications beyond the technical arguments of some script or
> another and it will be found in all the technical documents produced by
> ARM Ltd (including the next ARM Architecture Reference Manual).

Maybe it would help if someone explained _why_ the aarch64 name was
chosen. Assuming it wasn't handed down by a supreme being, there has
to be some reasoning behind the choice.

Måns Rullgård
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at