From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Sat Sep 9 01:53:02 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B283EE19E36 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2017 01:53:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from russ.haley@gmail.com) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90BE77418E for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2017 01:53:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from russ.haley@gmail.com) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 901EEE19E34; Sat, 9 Sep 2017 01:53:02 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F9CEE19E33; Sat, 9 Sep 2017 01:53:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from russ.haley@gmail.com) Received: from mail-lf0-x234.google.com (mail-lf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::234]) (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 15F087418D; Sat, 9 Sep 2017 01:53:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from russ.haley@gmail.com) Received: by mail-lf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id l196so8837603lfl.1; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 18:53:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xm7EaiP6G6i8yysmfJEpfljslx4YGUEb6TlhxBlOpCs=; b=iKMY9X4NfKrP5qkz+r1rUrz7zl4HgVdKn/7jb6tCM+RpIRe/A2uATWkE37QMr7XlI2 4wg8gBMkMXD0EbzMPJLiEX0S13PDJtgfxy2zY7ugPKj3RD5kGk3ANdJ8RCA6Mz/dbAYf SjS/zzMSM3w2f2RHCV0DrvBivfuIoZeh7ll2m6zdHqnvq9phRZ+sMQnPl9YkR0KvJqm1 ytTHiBJhq0SDNyGhz8uKLY3rt0NDUlZu12rpLvBlx1KreENOlYlTAls6mJ9H7EpJ+B+o ZwHlw3RrwTtsevSiwZkOnoTa4bGvCgs7aQ1HcFiQsCD3M+OEfacCKw1gAVK9OKtPp8uy AYbg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xm7EaiP6G6i8yysmfJEpfljslx4YGUEb6TlhxBlOpCs=; b=Zl6oWWvravhAGWHuMBLLZxC/N6Q5qzaCb/wX53fyZel7EIBFtSrASuzmZljfOVoxqv uLD2MWhLvmVjavbZnK03mh1s+YcjGAItB6GqWl021VmmwD6yhQLbE5tI1JYWLZAGLmTO PiD3W9ZuoTKLCeRcXoYN6c4ONkbJsTjQHvkgWb5qe/C3ApLWcvqZshG817b/J8IkNonU j8A5oaRq+RcNqH4vmlVttxTMWgHPttQqonQ5tmWmmpToI7Q56hjBLPC+LoabSOKyKj8v FhEqaJdyiw2p4+UWzwaBwcN0lHUV/qFEiW1i8JjneSBdRjVeC1JJURW/qEJQY1iYbIvy Bggw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhXZyMugM5UgchsT98+ukgZjzN7I3AcNyRJzVIZY/e/qlif2ECW irLDBZ+9r9cgpGAZ6DTSz0xjK+9F1vvqrGs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb5fIYWcRzt0+PWw/3L6s2Qe3VRg/qXpEtyoJ7x65BQyOn8gwAx0vxitkdAXhUdvpahP1t/iRDam0xfMihULhW4= X-Received: by 10.46.34.67 with SMTP id i64mr1719191lji.71.1504921980079; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 18:53:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.46.81.18 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Sep 2017 18:52:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Russell Haley Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 18:52:59 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FCP-100: armv7 plan To: Warner Losh Cc: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" , "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2017 01:53:02 -0000 On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Warner Losh 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