On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 12:04 -0600, Adam Miller wrote: > RAM is a really good point, I think it will be in the ballpark of 256 > (plus or minus a bit). Also, I'd like to open up the conversation > about version of ARM we as a SIG want to support as the efforts start > to ramp up while targeting popular devices. I think ARMv9 might be a > little too aggressive but are there any devices that are still > prominent that are ARMv5? Would it be possible (or even feasible) to > maintain ARMv5, ARMv7, and ARMv9 in parallel and treat them as > separate architectures? The ARM "Family" vs. "Architecture" numbering is wonky (and very frustrating - larger numbers don't reliably mean newer, bigger, faster, or better). The SheevaPlug uses an "ARM9E" family chip, which uses the "ARMv5TEJ" architecture. ARMv5 is a needed current target for that device and others. However, the popular Cortex chips use ARMv6M and ARMx7* architecture. Is there enough performance difference to warrant targeting both independently? And just the kernel, or userspace as well? -Chris _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
