[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090503090908.GA23183@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 11:09:08 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [git-pull -tip] x86: cpu_debug patches
* Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org> wrote:
> We can use cpu_has tests for unknown processors but 'cpu model' is
> accurate and cover all range.
>
> cpu_has does not cover following registers:
> 1. platform
> 2. poweron
> 3. control
> 4. bios
> 5. freq
> 6. cache
> 7. misc
> 8. base
> 9. ver
> 10. conf
Firstly these should be added to cpufeatures.h.
Then add cpu_has_xxx() accessors need to be added for them and
during CPU init they have to be properly set, via two methods:
- via CPUID (where this is possible+specified in docs)
- or via "later than CPU version X" checks
Your cpu-model table is equivalent to an explicitly enumerated CPU
version check, but this breaks every time a new CPU comes out.
"Later than" or CPUID based feature bits are a lot more future-proof
- we only have to add support for new _features_ (and quirks,
occasionally), and dont have to maintain that full table of specific
models to specific features mapping tables.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists