From owner-freebsd-arm Mon Jan 1 17:45:58 2001 From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 1 17:45:57 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Received: from relay.nuxi.com (nuxi.cs.ucdavis.edu [169.237.7.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBCDC37B400 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 17:45:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (Ipitythefoolthattrustsident@trang.nuxi.com [209.152.133.57]) by relay.nuxi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA78938 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 17:45:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien@NUXI.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f021jtj29521 for freebsd-arm@freebsd.org; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 17:45:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 17:45:55 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: name for sys/ Message-ID: <20010101174554.A29489@dragon.nuxi.com> Reply-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 Sender: obrien@NUXI.com Sender: owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Mike Smith suggested `arm32', but upon reading http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/arm32/ : There is really no such thing as `an arm32.' The first ARM processors (ARM2 and ARM3) were designed by Acorn, and had both 26 bit constraints and poor MMUs. These processors are supported by NetBSD/arm26. Acorn later spun off ARM with Apple and VLSI. ARM's CPUs (6, 7, 8, 9 and StrongARM) were fully 32-bit and are supported by NetBSD/arm32. I am back to wondering what to call this beast. I don't think we should carry forward `arm32' if it is an artificial name. GNU autoconf refers to it simply as `arm', but I kinda like `strongarm' since that make it perfectly clear what CPUs we are supporting. Opinions? -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arm" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arm Mon Jan 1 19: 6: 6 2001 From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 1 19:06:04 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Received: from db.wireless.net (adsl-gte-la-216-86-194-70.mminternet.com [216.86.194.70]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AA3537B400 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 19:06:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from wireless.net (dbm.wireless.net [192.168.0.2]) by db.wireless.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03189 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 18:49:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dbutter@wireless.net) Sender: dbutter@db.wireless.net Message-ID: <3A5145CC.5EEE71CE@wireless.net> Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:06:52 -0800 From: Devin Butterfield X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: name for sys/ References: <20010101174554.A29489@dragon.nuxi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG David O'Brien wrote: > > Mike Smith suggested `arm32', but upon reading > http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/arm32/ : > > There is really no such thing as `an arm32.' The first ARM processors > (ARM2 and ARM3) were designed by Acorn, and had both 26 bit > constraints and poor MMUs. These processors are supported by > NetBSD/arm26. Acorn later spun off ARM with Apple and VLSI. ARM's > CPUs (6, 7, 8, 9 and StrongARM) were fully 32-bit and are supported > by NetBSD/arm32. > > I am back to wondering what to call this beast. I don't think we should > carry forward `arm32' if it is an artificial name. GNU autoconf refers to > it simply as `arm', but I kinda like `strongarm' since that make it > perfectly clear what CPUs we are supporting. > > Opinions? I would agree with David that `strongarm' would be the better choice since there is no question regarding what's supported. It's always smart to make things self-documenting. -- Regards, Devin. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arm" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arm Tue Jan 2 14:18:53 2001 From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 2 14:18:52 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Received: from hand.dotat.at (sfo-gw.covalent.net [207.44.198.62]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97ED237B402 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:18:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from fanf by hand.dotat.at with local (Exim 3.15 #3) id 14DN4m-0004IW-00; Tue, 02 Jan 2001 08:45:48 +0000 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 08:45:48 +0000 From: Tony Finch To: Devin Butterfield Cc: freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: name for sys/ Message-ID: <20010102084548.L47732@hand.dotat.at> References: <20010101174554.A29489@dragon.nuxi.com> <3A5145CC.5EEE71CE@wireless.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <3A5145CC.5EEE71CE@wireless.net> Organization: Covalent Technologies, Inc Sender: fanf@dotat.at Sender: owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Devin Butterfield wrote: >David O'Brien wrote: >> >> I am back to wondering what to call this beast. I don't think we should >> carry forward `arm32' if it is an artificial name. > >I would agree with David that `strongarm' would be the better choice >since there is no question regarding what's supported. ARM Ltd define various versions of the instruction set (I think the most recent version is v5T and the StrongARM is v4) so I suggest something like arm4. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch fanf@covalent.net dot@dotat.at "Because all you of Earth are idiots!" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arm" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-arm Tue Jan 2 17:35:48 2001 From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 2 17:35:47 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Received: from fdy2.demon.co.uk (fdy2.demon.co.uk [194.222.102.143]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E4037B402 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:35:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rjs@localhost) by fdy2.demon.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA00563; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:55:31 GMT (envelope-from rjs) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:55:31 GMT Message-Id: <200101022355.XAA00563@fdy2.demon.co.uk> From: Robert Swindells To: dot@dotat.at Cc: dbutter@wireless.net, freebsd-arm@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <20010102084548.L47732@hand.dotat.at> (message from Tony Finch on Tue, 2 Jan 2001 08:45:48 +0000) Subject: Re: name for sys/ Sender: owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >Devin Butterfield wrote: >>David O'Brien wrote: >>> >>> I am back to wondering what to call this beast. I don't think we should >>> carry forward `arm32' if it is an artificial name. >> >>I would agree with David that `strongarm' would be the better choice >>since there is no question regarding what's supported. >ARM Ltd define various versions of the instruction set (I think the >most recent version is v5T and the StrongARM is v4) so I suggest >something like arm4. My vote would be for 'arm'. We will want to support the XScale processors and maybe the Cirrus Logic Maverick. Robert To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arm" in the body of the message