Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:37:38 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD/arm64 MACHINE/MACHINE_ARCH identification Message-ID: <EC5AAE72-F553-4F31-8768-9854B6EE2C69@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <54DCE9B5.8040203@freebsd.org> References: <CAPyFy2A=Ev5gdYPKgEE0LS3-1sY%2BXmkZA7VCe71E6Fmbb=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> <54DCE9B5.8040203@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Feb 12, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Nathan Whitehorn = <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 > 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. >>>=20 >>> Traditionally in Linux, they have been a matched set. >>=20 >> Ok, it appears they may have abandoned this. >>=20 >>>> 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. >>>=20 >>> This one I=E2=80=99m not on board with. You=E2=80=99ve not made a = compelling case for >>> it yet. >>=20 >> That's why I said "we might decide" -- I'm not sure myself. >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > 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. arm would be a pleasing outcome, but looking at his WIP tree, it looks = like it would be possible, but rather inconvenient to merge the arm64 = bits back under arm and make them conditional. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?EC5AAE72-F553-4F31-8768-9854B6EE2C69>