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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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, Russhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CABx9NuSawbewJCD4C72C6dFwQaH3eRxWqBEQokzivJHkdwErQw>