From owner-freebsd-arm Tue Jan 2 17:35:48 2001 From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 2 17:35:47 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Received: from fdy2.demon.co.uk (fdy2.demon.co.uk [194.222.102.143]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E4037B402 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:35:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rjs@localhost) by fdy2.demon.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA00563; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:55:31 GMT (envelope-from rjs) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:55:31 GMT Message-Id: <200101022355.XAA00563@fdy2.demon.co.uk> From: Robert Swindells To: dot@dotat.at Cc: dbutter@wireless.net, freebsd-arm@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <20010102084548.L47732@hand.dotat.at> (message from Tony Finch on Tue, 2 Jan 2001 08:45:48 +0000) Subject: Re: name for sys/ Sender: owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >Devin Butterfield 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