[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B219A6F.1060801@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:03:43 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andreas Herrmann <herrmann.der.user@...glemail.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, amd: Make check_c1e_idle explicit
This patch needs a lot better documentation. For one thing, it needs an
explicit patch comment!
In particular, is this a contract that fam 0x12+ will behave differently?
-hpa
On 12/10/2009 05:32 AM, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
>
> CC: stable@...nel.org
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/process.c | 14 ++++++--------
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> index ea54ce8..1bf98b1 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> @@ -494,21 +494,19 @@ static int __cpuinit mwait_usable(const struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> }
>
> /*
> - * Check for AMD CPUs, which have potentially C1E support
> + * Check for AMD CPUs, which potentially use SMI or hardware initiated C1E
> */
> static int __cpuinit check_c1e_idle(const struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> {
> if (c->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_AMD)
> return 0;
>
> - if (c->x86 < 0x0F)
> - return 0;
> -
> - /* Family 0x0f models < rev F do not have C1E */
> - if (c->x86 == 0x0f && c->x86_model < 0x40)
> - return 0;
> + if ((c->x86 == 0x0F && c->x86_model >= 0x40) ||
> + (c->x86 == 0x10) ||
> + (c->x86 == 0x11))
> + return 1;
>
> - return 1;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static cpumask_var_t c1e_mask;
--
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