From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Feb 12 17:58:14 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 0A40A379
 for <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:58:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from anacreon.physics.berkeley.edu (anacreon.Physics.Berkeley.EDU
 [128.32.117.18])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "anacreon.physics.wisc.edu",
 Issuer "anacreon.physics.wisc.edu" (not verified))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D95183E5
 for <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:58:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from anacreon.physics.berkeley.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by anacreon.physics.berkeley.edu (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t1CHwDst071758
 for <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:58:13 -0800 (PST)
 (envelope-from nwhitehorn@freebsd.org)
Message-ID: <54DCE9B5.8040203@freebsd.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:58:13 -0800
From: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD powerpc;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD/arm64 MACHINE/MACHINE_ARCH identification
References: <CAPyFy2A=Ev5gdYPKgEE0LS3-1sY+XmkZA7VCe71E6Fmbb=vMRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <607BF592-A09B-4DB4-9872-C9E63066AB57@bsdimp.com>
 <CAPyFy2Bgrap3TkFNuChyMC0Vwbjdt5FVW0ey03XtkK1iwNL1KQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <71E9C1B9-F819-420B-90A5-A36D58E71817@bsdimp.com>
 <CAPyFy2ATn5xgsvePCdvzqnyBS45izVHdL8yLaQQoKeJenSv9tg@mail.gmail.com>
 <228428CC-4042-4902-90A4-E7040F4BFFF5@bsdimp.com>
 <CAPyFy2BKzhiA4tbi-mXd6T114_zawmWTi3XbyXiUcgijQfHdyw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2BKzhiA4tbi-mXd6T114_zawmWTi3XbyXiUcgijQfHdyw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." <freebsd-arm.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-arm>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arm-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arm/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arm-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arm-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:58:14 -0000

On 02/12/15 09:15, Ed Maste wrote:
>>> Oh - I don't care what directory Linux puts the kernel source in, only
>>> what's reported by uname.  As far as I can tell that has always been
>>> aarch64 for uname -m.
>>
>> Traditionally in Linux, they have been a matched set.
>
> Ok, it appears they may have abandoned this.
>
>>> We might decide that "uname -m" has to be aarch64 to match
>>> expectations of third-party software set by other operating systems.
>>> If that in turn means we have to move the kernel source, so be it.
>>
>> This one I’m not on board with. You’ve not made a compelling case for
>> it yet.
>
> That's why I said "we might decide" -- I'm not sure myself.
>
> However, there's no backwards compatibility concern here, we've never
> had a FreeBSD release that reports "arm64" for "uname -m". There's no
> reason for us to prefer "arm64" if everyone else uses "aarch64."
> Also, having arm64 for uname -m and aarch64 for uname -p seems a bit
> odd.

I would assume uname -m would be "arm", not "arm64". Unless there are 
fundamental platform differences you are baking in somehow, which I 
don't know.
-Nathan