Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:16:38 +0100 | | From | Borislav Petkov <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/5] cpufreq: Add APERF/MPERF support for AMD processors |
| |
From: Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de> Date: Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 09:59:31PM +0100
> On Thursday 25 March 2010 08:55:19 pm Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:43:04 BST, Thomas Renninger said: > > > > + if (c->cpuid_level >= 6) { > > > > > > and remove this (arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c): > > > if (c->cpuid_level > 6) { > > > > So is > or >= the correct comparator here? > > This one: >= is correct (for both). > I double checked, there is one Intel CPU type > having a cpuid_level of 6, but this would not support aperf/mperf, thus > above is still fine.
Agreed. ">" won't work on machines which have base cpuidlevel == 6 (like AMD, f.e.)
> The remaining question is what Borislav said: > are there other x86 CPU vendors who could use this differently. > I very much expect there are not. > > IMO you should resubmit this one or the whole series with this change
Ok, will do tomorrow.
> and Dave should just push this in his tree and queue it up, there was enough > time to object.
The problem here is that the patches touch both cpufreq and x86 code. Hmmm...
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
-- Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Operating Systems Research Center
|  |