[En-Nut-Discussion] Which is the latest greatest branch

Harald Kipp harald.kipp at egnite.de
Thu Aug 23 10:48:49 CEST 2012

On 23.08.2012 00:09, Ole Reinhardt wrote:
>>> Splitting out M4 would nearly be only code duplication, only when somebody
>>> cares for FPU-aware threads things should go in a seperate directory.
>> That's why I voted for using ARM architectures as directory names, not marketing names.
> What about renaming it just to "cortex"?
> I mainly agree to your proposal to rename it to the arm architecture
> names. But most end-users won't understand it. So cortex is more
> commonly used.

We then have arm and cortex, with

 arm7tdmi (armv4) and arm9e (armv5) in arm


 cm3 (armv7) in cortex.

Later we will add

 cm0 (armv6) in cortex

but the same architecture

 arm11 (armv6) in arm

just because it is not called cortex.

Finally we will add arm64 (armv8) in arm. However, if ARM Holdings decides to name it cortex-ng for marketing purposes, then we move it to cortex. If they call it nut, then we are busted.

I contributed almost nothing to the cm3 port, so it's not my decision. But it's my strong opinion, that using

 arch/arm_v4 for arm7tdmi
 arch/arm_v5 for arm9e
 arch/arm_v7 for arm-cortex-m3 and arm-cortex-m4

is the best way to handle existing and upcoming ARM architectures. It would make sense to additionally use


for items common to all ARMs and


for items common to all ARM-Cortex.

End users will rarely dive into nut/arch. Developers may have a short look at




P.S. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

More information about the En-Nut-Discussion mailing list