platform/pc64 will be dropped

[Erik Wikström]

On 2007-08-23 10:20, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
Hey,

I just had a look into making the kernel compile for amd64. What I
found is the following.
The platform files for pc32 and pc64 are VERY simmilar. In fact,
everything which is not simmilar is cpu-specific bits which need to go
into the cpu hierarchy.
Maintaining both seems to be absolutely backwards. Why have different
trees for the same hardware? The hardware *is* the same. It is just the
CPU, i.e. the instruction set architecture (ISA) which is different.
Everything else, ranging from acpi to smp is the same. So the obvious
and correct solution is to just maintain one.
This, however, leaves us with an awkward name. Pc32 for x86_64? The
pc32 name always seemed wrong. How about calling it "ibm-pc"? After all,
that's the basic architecture, since almost 20 years. Actually, the more
I think about it, the more it makes sense it me.
Why not just pc? I know that technically a PC does not have to be an IBM 
compatible computer, but what other kind of computer could one mean when 
saying PC. If you mean a Mac you say Mac, an Amiga is an Amiga and so on