<div>Thanks for correcting my understanding.</div> <div>We would also move our code to powerpc from ppc next release onwards.</div> <div> </div> <div>Parav</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div><BR><B><I>Josh Boyer <jdub@us.ibm.com></I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 05:38 -0700, Parav Pandit wrote:<BR>> ppc = 32bit.<BR>> powerpc= 64bit.<BR>> Correct me if I am wrong.<BR><BR>Yes, you're wrong. Some 32 bit boards are also under arch/powerpc now.<BR><BR>> <BR>> I am not sure why community didn't adopt the name ppc and ppc64 just<BR>> like ia-32 and ia64.<BR><BR>They did originally.<BR><BR>The new direction is to have everything under arch/powerpc, both 32 and<BR>64 bit. The reason arch/ppc still exists is because some 32 bit<BR>platforms have not been fully migrated to the requirements to be merged<BR>into arch/powerpc.
Namely, the code has to boot from an OpenFirmware<BR>like flattened device tree. The PPC 4xx family of processors, as an<BR>example, does not do this yet though there is work going on to adapt it.<BR><BR>Eventually, arch/ppc will go away and all of PowerPC will be under<BR>arch/powerpc. That's the goal anyway.<BR><BR>josh<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p> 
<hr size=1>Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=42974/*http://www.yahoo.com/preview"> Check it out.</a>