[U-Boot-Users] PPC970FX 64-bit processor

John W. Linville linville at tuxdriver.com
Tue Jan 11 00:54:30 CET 2005

> John W. Linville wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:53:11PM +0200, tzachi perelstein wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I can be even more explicitly and suggest [.8, .16, .32, .64].
> >>What do you think?  
> >
> >
> >I think I like that even better.

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:09:59PM -0600, Tolunay Orkun wrote:
> It would break compatibility with existing scripts and documentation of 
> everyone else. I think we should maintain earlier definitions at least 
> for existing 32-bit implementations.

Perhaps...if that is the prevailing logic, then I think my original
proposal (just adding a .ll) makes the most sense.

Still, I think the bit-width based modifiers is the cleaner solution.

Tzachi, perhaps you can #ifdef the cli code to only use the [.8, ...,
.64] for new and/or 64-bit platforms?

Just a thought...

John W. Linville
linville at tuxdriver.com

More information about the U-Boot mailing list