From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 17 18:09:28 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9B733CF for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:09:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pd0-f171.google.com (mail-pd0-f171.google.com [209.85.192.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74E2DB26 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:09:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pdbfp1 with SMTP id fp1so45291873pdb.9 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:09:22 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=qchj5h/df5KwHLTXWAsx1Cy9NTD4GkME1X1GXzHIiv4=; b=HESneSAK508cpK0W5RGuwvUakLLmc0RMer1s59TqAwvWwcbDbTNaWKkvyl1hGu83XV B/0VU8zS0oNespiKZElHqgM8kkVKmwwyjOajZHZt7/kT8l5QlHKjIPFC1VZVaVM8+ph2 cGiTnFZSw61w9R1ZRM0wKNoyz7mckjx7OgAEJOMI4GCTub8psMyu5gNnkebuXMB6wUvN zxkGQmPAyqqUzxIrWizGfAAOSCv1HkOi5T+LhJGITllvGnFc12Ngz8zAG9ewRefcyqVO LBYk1vFHSksewBtlh7tQnm9ucJcCEzCK7azQjw+hQyZ7EMnxmogYUOSS+i17Cqia3Byn hUUw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkzrtB6kVNoNeDq2NWW7mkOmpKgooDVjQTHhfF/3NiKN69F7nJExfOqtpx0yjMp0O0gLJ1l X-Received: by 10.70.47.70 with SMTP id b6mr50449973pdn.136.1424196562411; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:09:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.64.24.127] ([69.53.236.236]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id nq16sm7928983pdb.85.2015.02.17.10.09.21 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:09:21 -0800 (PST) Sender: Warner Losh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) Subject: Re: FreeBSD/arm64 MACHINE/MACHINE_ARCH identification From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:09:19 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <498498C7-152D-49FB-8C11-D340901253F3@bsdimp.com> References: <607BF592-A09B-4DB4-9872-C9E63066AB57@bsdimp.com> <71E9C1B9-F819-420B-90A5-A36D58E71817@bsdimp.com> <228428CC-4042-4902-90A4-E7040F4BFFF5@bsdimp.com> To: Ed Maste X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Cc: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:09:28 -0000 > On Feb 16, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Ed Maste wrote: >=20 > On 12 February 2015 at 11:29, Warner Losh wrote: >>=20 >> Traditionally in Linux, they have been a matched set. >=20 > It looks like it's not so straightforward in the GNU/Linux world > either. Excerpts from Debian's cputable file: >=20 > # = > amd64 x86_64 x86_64 64 little > arm64 aarch64 aarch64 64 little >=20 > Debian and .deb derivatives use arm64 for the 64-bit ARM port name, > and I'm told Fedora and .rpm derivatives use aarch64. But in all cases > the CPU architecture reported by uname is aarch64. >=20 > Debian uses "amd64" for the 64-bit x86 port name, like us, but uname > reports x86_64. For pkg(8), we should use whatever MACHINE_ARCH lists, as that=E2=80=99s = what we do everywhere else. We just got done killing the arbitrarily = different names and I=E2=80=99d like to keep them dead :). We already don=E2=80=99t = match the debian conventions for many of our architectures, so that=E2=80=99s not a huge loss :) Based on our IRC conversations, I think we violently agree on the = following bits: (1) MACHINE_ARCH (-p) should be aarch64 (2) MACHINE (-m) should match /usr/src/sys/BLAH (3) we control what BLAH is It would be most compatible to use aarch64 for BLAH from a shell script perspective. It would be more in keeping with FreeeBSD=E2=80=99s other = architectures to have it be just =E2=80=9Carm=E2=80=9D. Having BLAH be arm, however, = presents many interesting logistical issues for the port mostly confined to the = kernel, but with a few tendrils into the build system. Having BLAH be aarch64, however, would mean we=E2=80=99d have to re-do the -m32 support and add = a second special-case to live along side the amd64 special case we have = now. So, there=E2=80=99s no clear cut answers here, except maybe that = =E2=80=9Carm64=E2=80=9D would present the most pain of the three sensible choices we have at our disposal for BLAH (arm, aarch64, arm64). Warner=