[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1810070725460.5454@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 07:32:50 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc: peterz@...radead.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
eranian@...gle.com, kan.liang@...el.com, isaku.yamahata@...el.com,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] x86/cpufeature: Add facility to match microcode
revisions
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 04:14:54PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Oct 2018, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > +/*
> > > + * Match specific microcodes or steppings.
> >
> > What means microcodes or steppings? If you mean microcode revisions then
> > please spell it out and use it all over the place. steppings is confusing
> > at best as its associated to the CPU stepping.
>
> The matcher can be used to match specific hardware steppings by setting
> the min/max_ucode to 0 or specific microcode revisions
> (which are associated with steppings)
I can see your point, but calling x86_match_ucode() to match the stepping
of a CPU is really not intuitive. Can we please have functions and data
structures which have a clear purpose and are not overloaded in obscure
ways?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists