Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 18:52:59 -0700 From: Russell Haley <russ.haley@gmail.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FCP-100: armv7 plan Message-ID: <CABx9NuSawbewJCD4C72C6dFwQaH3eRxWqBEQokzivJHkdwErQw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfrCwdVOGWunSAjuxHzGcqhuH24iRQg63rvPFXXSmm-C6Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <CANCZdfrCwdVOGWunSAjuxHzGcqhuH24iRQg63rvPFXXSmm-C6Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > Greetings, > > This will serve as 'Last Call' for any objections to the plan to create an > armv7 MACHINE_ARCH in FreeBSD, as documented in FCP-0100. > > Please see https://github.com/freebsd/fcp/blob/master/fcp-0100.md for all > the details. This has been discussed in the mailing lists, on IRC, etc and > I believe that I've captured the consensus from those discussions. > > I'm interested in any last minute comments, but as far as I can tell I have > consensus on this issue. Absent any comments to the contrary, I'll proceed > to having core@ vote that this document represents consensus. Now is the > time to speak up if I've gotten anything wrong. > > Once the core vote is done, I plan on committing the code reviews I have > open on this: > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D12027 > and > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D12010 > (again, I welcome any commits / criticisms in phabricator on the specific > issues in this code) > > Thanks for any comments... > > Warner > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arm@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arm-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" Hi Warner, Thanks for your work on this. General thoughts in and around this subject. 1) I like how you split the commit into generic build system changes vs BSP changes. It was helpful in aiding visibility in the code changes. 2) Are these statements true? - We will not be differentiating hard/soft float. It is assumed armv6/7 are hard float (no letter suffixes) - armv4/5 has no changes - armv6 is split into armv6, armv7 - armv8 is aarch64 - We will not be supporting aarch64 32 bit extensions for running armv6/7 binaries - There is no way to run aarch64 on armv7 3) Can I ask if there will be other armv[0-9+] architectures created or do you think everything new will transition to 64 bit? If so, will we (FreeBSD) be able to differentiate those architectures in the future (aarch64v2)? I guess what I'm asking is "in your expert opinion, have we taken enough steps to ensure clean code/names/you-get-my-point for future changes?" What else could we do? It seems that there is a lot of changes in arm compared to other architectures. The rapid development of different things by the Arm group and other vendors seems to cause a lot of churn. Do you think our naming conventions do enough to take this into consideration? Modern hardware manufacturing seem much different then what I am reading about in Unix history. Have our naming patterns kept up? 4) Also, if my supposition about arm 32/64 compatibility is correct, do we have plans in place for future boards may have 32/64 bit compatibility like the RPi3? Or, is it just two different builds and downloads? (which I'm cool with, but would like to know) Cheers, Russ
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CABx9NuSawbewJCD4C72C6dFwQaH3eRxWqBEQokzivJHkdwErQw>