[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <201aca5b-fdbd-465f-b008-0f7c1ed10b60@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:12:39 -0700
From: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Zhuo, Qiuxu" <qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com>
CC: "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] x86/mce: Convert multiple if () statements into
a switch() statement
On 10/21/2024 5:17 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> We only have a handful of these and they're mostly for early family 6
> things. I bet there's less than half a dozen.
>
You are right. There don't seem to be many unbounded model checks for
Intel family 6. I could only find 3.
early_init_intel() -> constant_tsc - Tony found out that it is harmless
since it got it's own enumeration later on.
should_io_be_busy() and acpi_processor_power_init_bm_check() also seem
to be for older platforms and probably no longer applicable. I'll reach
out to the power folks to confirm.
Maybe if we just add an upper bound to these checks then we don't to
worry about carrying them forward with the newer family 6 models and
upcoming family 19 models.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists