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?
