On Thursday 04 March 2010 01:26:07 pm Chris Tyler wrote: > 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? I suspect building different optimised glibc andl openssl might be enough. there could be some other packages that could benefit from different optimisations things like theora etc. some devices also have hardware and others use software floating point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture has a good chart. rpm is using "Architecture Version" not the family for determining its arch Dennis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
