David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 19, 2012 12:42 pm wrote:
> Steve (sberens.Throwaway.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 17, 2012 2:12 pm
> wrote:
> > David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 14,
> 2012 12:04 am
> > wrote:
> > > The new ARMv8 architecture is classically
> British; a clean and
> > elegant 64-bit
> > > instruction set, with
> compatibility for 32-bit software.
> > The 64-bit mode
> > > eliminates
> many complicated and awkward features and will
> > foster a larger and
> >
> > more diverse ARM ecosystem with new licensees and
> >
> applications.
> > >
> > > This article
> > > is a deep dive
> into ARMv8 and the
> > two instruction sets, AArch32 and
> > >
> AArch64.
> > >
> > >
> > http://www.realworldtech.com/arm64/
> >
> >
> > > As always, comments and
> > >
> > feedback are
> welcome.
> > >
> > > David
> >
> > A correction for page 1.
> Nvidia is
> > not named but has had an ARM architectural license since
> >
> 01/06/2011.
> >
> >
> http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/Nvidia-Project-Denver/
>
> That's true, I
> didn't want to try and list every licensee - because I simply do not know who
> many of them are. Is Apple an architecture licensee? Hard to say.
>
> I settled
> on a few known licensees and did omit Nvidia.
>
> DK

So, even though Nvidia and ARM publicly stated in January 2011 that Nvidia had taken an ARM architectural license you chose to ignore it?

And then you mention "More recently, Samsung and Cavium Networks have both taken architectural licenses and along with start up Calxeda" but then again omit Nvidia.

Seems like a pattern is emerging here.