linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH -v2] x86/cpu: Add CPU model number for Bartlett Lake CPUs with Raptor Cove cores

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: <DS7PR11MB60779A14A91C73D04CC60494FCB32@DS7PR11MB6077.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 16:21:37 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Christian Ludloff <ludloff@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Pi,
 Xiange" <xiange.pi@...el.com>, "andrew.cooper3@...rix.com"
	<andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, John Ogness
	<john.ogness@...utronix.de>, "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwi@...utronix.de>,
	"x86-cpuid@...ts.linux.dev" <x86-cpuid@...ts.linux.dev>, "x86@...nel.org"
	<x86@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH -v2] x86/cpu: Add CPU model number for Bartlett Lake CPUs
 with Raptor Cove cores

> > Please fix this. It has the core and the product reversed. That is, it
> > should be INTEL_BARTLETTLAKE and /* Raptor Cove */ to match
> > the bulk of that file.
>
> I switched it around for this commit - see the updated patch below.
>
> > And yes, you also want to fix this for INTEL_PANTHERCOVE_X
> > and /* Diamond Rapids */ entry.
> >
> > The macros refer to products.
> > The comments refer to cores.
>
> Please send a patch if you have the time.
>
> > Consistency, please.
> > Sanity, please.
>
> Amen!

PeterZ has been very vocal that he wants the "sane" way to be making the "#define"
name be based on the core rather than the product.  That way multiple products using
the same core show up together in switch statements for model specific features like
power and performance counters.

This does mean we have a transition between legacy names that were using the
SoC product codename and modern ones that use the core codename.

Can the X86 maintainers please get in a huddle and define a naming
policy. This discussion keeps happening.

-Tony