linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/cpu: Rename Denverton and Gemini Lake

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180807221725.GU4238@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 15:17:25 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...hat.com, len.brown@...el.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/cpu: Rename Denverton and Gemini Lake

> Which simply does not work. Look at Goldmont Fam 6 Model 5C. The SoCs
> with that Fam/Model combination are:
> 
>  - Apollo Lake
>  - Broxton (has two platforms: Morganfield and Willowtrail)

Right pick one. The others are the same for software purposes
and can be handled in the same way.

> 
> It's even worse with Silvermont.
> 
> So no, the interesting information is the UARCH and the variant of that,

With Uarch you mean the core uarch?  That doesn't really work for
something like Silvermont or Goldmont.

> e.g. UARCH_CLIENT, UARCH_SERVER, UARCH_WHATEVER. All the magic Code Names

Right your scheme totally doesn't work on Silvermont because there
are multiple client variants.

> and their platform variants are not interesting at all for the Fam/Model
> information.

You're right platform is misleading. I think the right level 
are SOCs, because that matches the how the model numbers are allocated.

On Big Core *Lakes are all unique SOCs.

-Andi