[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a76e05b7-112a-3140-e97a-2e03fc21e5f5@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 17:59:19 +0100
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Vipul Kumar <vipulk0511@...il.com>,
Vipul Kumar <vipul_kumar@...tor.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Srikanth Krishnakar <Srikanth_Krishnakar@...tor.com>,
Cedric Hombourger <Cedric_Hombourger@...tor.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/tsc_msr: Make MSR derived TSC frequency more
accurate
Hi,
On 30-01-2020 17:52, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 6:04 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 30-01-2020 17:02, David Laight wrote:
>
>> I have no idea. Andy if you can find any docs on the MSR_FSB_FREQ values
>> for Merriefield (BYT MID) and Moorefield (CHT MID) that would be great,
>> if not I suggest we stick with what we have.
>
> First of all, Merrifield (Silvermont based Atom for phones, FYI: Intel
> Edison uses it) and Moorefield (Airmont) have nothing to do with code
> names Baytrail and Cherrytrail respectively.
> So, please don't confuse people.
Ok, sorry, I've prepped a v2 of this patch in my local tree with
the following changelog:
Changes in v2:
-Do not refer to Merrifield / Moorefield as BYT / CHT, they only share the
CPU core design and otherwise are significantly different
> I'll try to find some information.
OK, I'll wait a bit with sending out the v2 then.
Regards,
Hans
Powered by blists - more mailing lists