[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161229093614.GB11221@nazgul.tnic>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:36:14 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Junichi Nomura <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/2] x86/microcode/intel: Add a helper which gives the
microcode revision
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 10:12:22AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> As in the other email, could this just be native_cpuid()?
Right, so we only have use for the native_cpuid_eax() variant right now
but having them all is nicely consistent. They come for almost for free
too.
Also, they're cpuid_<reg>() counterparts and if we don't add the
native_cpuid_e[bcd]x() now I can already see the question: "But but, why
didn't you implement the rest of the CPUID regs?"
Considering how cheap they are, I'd say we keep them all 4.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists