[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52278458a9c3e7a1f8a1ae03165dd34ebcdba36a.camel@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 02:23:05 +0000
From: "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>
To: "Mehta, Sohil" <sohil.mehta@...el.com>, "Luck, Tony"
<tony.luck@...el.com>, "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com"
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
CC: "viresh.kumar@...aro.org" <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"andrew.cooper3@...rix.com" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>, "luto@...nel.org"
<luto@...nel.org>, "linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>, "david.laight.linux@...il.com"
<david.laight.linux@...il.com>, "alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com"
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, "Hunter, Adrian"
<adrian.hunter@...el.com>, "jdelvare@...e.com" <jdelvare@...e.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>, "irogers@...gle.com"
<irogers@...gle.com>, "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux@...ck-us.net" <linux@...ck-us.net>, "lenb@...nel.org"
<lenb@...nel.org>, "kan.liang@...ux.intel.com" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "peterz@...radead.org"
<peterz@...radead.org>, "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>, "jolsa@...nel.org"
<jolsa@...nel.org>, "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, "namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/17] hwmon: Fix Intel Family-model checks to include
extended Families
On Wed, 2025-02-12 at 08:57 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 2/12/25 05:43, Zhang, Rui wrote:
> > I agree.
> > adjust_tjmax() contains a list of quirks based on PCI-
> > ID/x86_vendor_id/x86_model/x86_stepping. The common problem is that
> > all
> > the quirks are for Fam6 processors but the family id is not
> > checked. So
> > the fix is sufficient. In fact, I think it is better to move the
> > check
> > to the very beginning of adjust_tjmax().
>
> Or, heck, just remove the model list. dev_warn_once() if the rdmsr
> fails. Who cares about one more line in dmesg?
>
> Why not do the attached patch?
The patch looks good to me.
-rui
Powered by blists - more mailing lists