Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:55:31 GMT From: Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.demon.co.uk> To: dot@dotat.at Cc: dbutter@wireless.net, freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: name for sys/ Message-ID: <200101022355.XAA00563@fdy2.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20010102084548.L47732@hand.dotat.at> (message from Tony Finch on Tue, 2 Jan 2001 08:45:48 %2B0000)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Devin Butterfield <dbutter@wireless.net> wrote: >>David O'Brien wrote: >>> >>> I am back to wondering what to call this beast. I don't think we should >>> carry forward `arm32' if it is an artificial name. >> >>I would agree with David that `strongarm' would be the better choice >>since there is no question regarding what's supported. >ARM Ltd define various versions of the instruction set (I think the >most recent version is v5T and the StrongARM is v4) so I suggest >something like arm4. My vote would be for 'arm'. We will want to support the XScale processors and maybe the Cirrus Logic Maverick. Robert To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arm" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200101022355.XAA00563>