[dpdk-dev] Correct use of Arm related names

Thomas Monjalon thomas at monjalon.net
Wed Oct 10 10:48:51 CEST 2018


10/10/2018 06:37, Honnappa Nagarahalli:
> Hi,
> This email was triggered by a request to change ARM to Arm in the dpdk.org webpage. I went down the path of finding out the correct names to use. There has not been consistency in using these names across all other projects. So, the recommendation I have got is, 'choose something and use it consistently' (within the DPDK project). Following are my recommendations (please notice the lower/upper case of the letters):
> 
> Architectural State:
> aarch64/arm64 - referring to aarch64 state - recommended: aarch64
> aarch32/arm32 - referring to aarch32 state - recommended: aarch32 (arm32 might create confusion with armv7)
> 
> ISA:
> armv8.x
> armv7.x
> 
> Any reference to Company name:
> Arm
> 
> So, everything is lower case except when referring to the company (for ex: Copyright) name.
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions.

There is still confusion about when to use the arch name (aarch64)
or the ISA (armv8)?

For instance, the lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/arm/ directory
has files split by 32/64 arch. I thought it would make more sense to have
different low-level routines depending of the ISA.

Is it possible to have armv7 in aarch64?
Is it possible to have armv8 in aarch32?




More information about the dev mailing list