Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>