Nomenclature: "MIPS32", "MIPS64"
Quoted 20 lines · Kevin D. Kissell
Quoted 10 lines
"MIPS32" and "MIPS64" have a very specific meaning now, and for all I know are already trademarked/brandmarked/whatever by
MIPS Technologies Inc. to describe the new baseline ISA and privileged resource architecture (CP0, in other words) standards for 32-bit
and 64-bit MIPS devices. It's no big deal
for informal discussion, but *please* do not use the strings "MIPS32" or "MIPS64" in theQuoted 8 lines
code or documentation unless you are really and truly referring to MIPS32 and MIPS64
as defined by MIPS. If you want to refer to
the 64-bit versus 32-bit Linux ports, please express it otherwise, e.g. MIPS64bit,MIPS_64_bit, 64bitMIPS, etc. Otherwise
there is going to be a lot of needless confusion and a further source schism.
Quoted 5 lines
The use of these terms is pretty coherent with their meaning as given by Mips, Inc. Linux/MIPS32 is a implementation of Linux (mostly) for MIPS32 processors, Linux/MIPS64 for MIPS64 processors, so I don't see the problem.
Ralf
The problems are twofold. First, while it is of course possible to create a kernel that will run on both MIPS64 and pre-MIPS64 MIPS-III and MIPS-IV CPUs, it is also possible to create a MIPS64 kernel that would not necessarily run on R10000s and vice versa. Secondly, we are referring to two distinct things that ought to be distinguished
at the source and documentation level. We need a name for something
that is 64-bit-MIPS but not necessarily tied up with any particular CPU and a distinct name for something that is compatible with a particular CPU type. "MIPS32" and "MIPS64" are already trademarked
by MIPS to describe the CPUs, so we need another name for the generic OS infrastructure for 64-bit MIPS registers/addresses.
Quoted 11 lines
The problems are twofold. First, while it is of course possible to create a kernel that will run on both MIPS64 and pre-MIPS64 MIPS-III and MIPS-IV CPUs, it is also possible to create a MIPS64 kernel that would not necessarily run on R10000s and vice versa. Secondly, we are referring to two distinct things that ought to be distinguished
at the source and documentation level. We need a name for something
that is 64-bit-MIPS but not necessarily tied up with any particular CPU and a distinct name for something that is compatible with a particular CPU type. "MIPS32" and "MIPS64" are already trademarked
by MIPS to describe the CPUs, so we need another name for the generic OS infrastructure for 64-bit MIPS registers/addresses.
I would suggest that until someone from MIPS legal specifically raises an issue you don't worry about it. With the sparc people they were quite happy with Linux/sparc - which denotes Linux for sparc systems (they objected to sparclinux as that implied it was their product). In fact given the "/" is 'for' then I don't think there is even a valid trademark issue to be raised.
Its also not in MIPS interest to cause trouble. Its a product for their system. If they started being silly then everyones lawyers would be advising them to pull their "xyz product for mips" as a legal precaution.
Quoted 9 lines · Alan Cox
I would suggest that until someone from MIPS legal specifically raises an issue you don't worry about it. With the sparc people they were quite happy with Linux/sparc - which denotes Linux for sparc systems (they objected to sparclinux as that implied it was their product). In fact given the "/" is 'for' then I don't think there is even a valid trademark issue to be raised.
Its also not in MIPS interest to cause trouble. Its a product for their system. If they started being silly then everyones lawyers would be advising them to pull their "xyz product for mips" as a legal precaution.
I wouldn't expect MIPS to create any legal problems for anybody; you should consider this no more than an advice.
Ralf