[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C6C1C19.2070704@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:44:57 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, "greg@...ah.com" <greg@...ah.com>,
"ksrinivasan@...ell.com" <ksrinivasan@...ell.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, tsc: Limit CPU frequency calibration on AMD
On 08/18/2010 10:34 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> Right, do you have strong preferences between x86_init and x86_platform?
> The version below uses x86_platform because it has the calibrate_tsc()
> function in there too. Also, the version below nicely moves all that
> AMD-specific code to cpu/amd.c.
>
x86_init if it is expected to be __init code, otherwise x86_platform.
> I didn't opt for a calibrate_cpu_noop stub because I didn't want to
> pollute x86_init.c with yet another noop prototype. But I guess I should
> do that since the pointer testing is still executed while stubs are
> removed completely by smart compilers :).
Don't think it matters much, but tglx might have an opinion.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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