Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 11:01:01 -0500 From: "Aron J. Silverton" <ajs@labs.mot.com> To: Benno Rice <benno@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rename to freebsd-powerpc? Message-ID: <3EC3B9BD.1020001@labs.mot.com> In-Reply-To: <1053006586.649.42.camel@ratchet.jeamland.net> References: <45D0C30C-86CC-11D7-8F56-0003937E39E0@mac.com> <1053006586.649.42.camel@ratchet.jeamland.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Benno Rice wrote: > On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 21:56, David Leimbach wrote: > >>Well is the goal to support "all" PowerPC or just Macintosh? > > > The goal is to be as generic as we can be. > > >>There are a ton of VME PowerPC boards out there and some >>RS/6000s that might be able to run FreeBSD as well. > > > Yep. The issue is getting someone with the time to do the work who has > access to that hardware. > > >>What is the goal of people on this list? If its just mac-powerpc >>perhaps that is the way to go? Of course if Apple actually releases >>a Mac based on PPC-970 [64 bit PPC CPU] then we might get more confusion >>with Mac-PowerPC. :) >> >>Technically I think PPC is fine, powerpc is better but it may not >>really be more specific :). > > > And PPC is more specific? PowerPC is the name of the specification that > all of these processors follow, whether it's the 32-bit or 64-bit OEA > specifications or the weird variants like the IBM 4xx's they're all > called PowerPC. Since we have a driver in the system called ppc which > handles PC parallel port stuff, I've always made a concious effort to > refer to the platform as powerpc rather than ppc. It's also the name of > the directory in which the arch-specific code resides. > > The idea of the codebase is to support as many PowerPC platforms as we > can, so I think that's the right name for it. > Looking at two recent internal invoices on my desk, I see that we refer to the chips as both PPC and PowerPC. I agree with Benno and DES, however, with regards to changing the name of the list. For my part, I'll probably continue to type PPC in conversation, though. ;-) I like the idea of keeping it as -powerpc as opposed to differentiating between, for example, CompactPCI, MVME, Motorola, IBM, Apple, Artesyn, or other distint PowerPC-based boards. Isn't that what NetBSD does? It's probably not necessary here. I'd rather just list the supported boards and architectures as a subset of FreeBSD-PowerPC. Of course I have yet to contribute to the effort, so feel free to ignore me. I do hope to contribute real soon now. Aron -- Aron J. Silverton Senior Staff Research Engineer Motorola Laboratories, Networks and Infrastructure Research Motorola, Inc.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3EC3B9BD.1020001>