[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 0/5] arm64 patch

[Sharma Bhupesh-B45370]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de]
> On Behalf Of Scott Wood
> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 1:23 AM
> To: Dennis Gilmore
> Cc: trini at ti.com; u-boot at lists.denx.de; fenghua at phytium.com.cn
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3 0/5] arm64 patch
> 
> On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 23:32 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 21:47:09 +0800
> > fenghua at phytium.com.cn wrote:
> >
> > > From: David Feng <fenghua at phytium.com.cn>
> > >
> > > *** BLURB HERE ***
> > > Changes for v3:
> > >     - rewrite cache.S and exception.S that partly originated from
> > > linux kernel, so the license should be ok.
> > >     - according to scott wood's advice, make the fdt 64bit initrd
> > > start address support a seperate patch.
> > >
> > > David Feng (5):
> > >   core support of arm64
> > >   board support of arm64
> > >   arch support 1 of arm64
> > >   arch support 2 of arm64
> > >   64bit initrd start address support
> >
> > nitpick but the arch is aarch64 not arm64
> 
> powerpc is Power Architecture these days but we still call it powerpc.
> arm64 is a sensible name that doesn't reduce the meaningful part of the
> name (excluding the word size suffix) down to a single character.
> 

Arm64 seems more simple and sensible and in-line with the naming convention used
across linux (arch/arm64). I remember reading Linus's comments in favor of keeping a
arm64 naming convention in the past (instead of Armv8 or AArch64). Here is that mail thread for reference:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/15/133

Regards,
Bhupesh