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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKSQd8WsKnTk35PUCD_kM+Ox7yhBY23nMoE1R0Y3=U1OUrSRbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 21:18:18 +0200
From: Christian Ludloff <ludloff@...il.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	"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

On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 6:21 PM Luck, Tony <tony.luck@...el.com> wrote:
> > > The macros refer to products.
> > > The comments refer to cores.
> >
> > > 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.

Consider a two-level abstraction.

One which gets "looked up" from FMS – fundamentally
that is what the existing file is trying to achieve, right?

Another which gets "looked up" from core (e.g. RPC) or
product (e.g. RPL,BTL) or whatever-else-is-used-often.

--
Christian