[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111209212842.0b2ec9c7@endymion.delvare>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 21:28:42 +0100
From: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kay.sievers@...y.org, trenn@...e.de, davej@...hat.com,
axboe@...nel.dk, hpa@...or.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
ying.huang@...el.com, lenb@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] Add driver auto probing for x86 features
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 12:24:47 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > Can you guarantee that there is no asymmetric system already working
> > today?
>
> I used to have an asymmetric system myself, but we generally subset the
> CPU feature
> flags to be the same everywhere and I didn't change any per CPU stepping
> checks
> as they were there.
>
> > If you can't, then your approach could cause a regression. This
> > is why I am asking for an API change to let drivers pass a specific CPU
> > to x86_match_cpu(). There are at least two drivers who would take
> > benefit of this. Your patch set is supposed to only add driver
> > auto-loading, and while cleaning up the code in the process is nice, I
> > think you should avoid driver behavior changes, these are out of scope
> > for such a patch set.
>
> I undoed that change to the coretemp driver
Thanks.
> and there's no other AFAIK.
via-cputemp was affected as well.
> Generally most drivers only check the boot cpu.
--
Jean Delvare
--
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