Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Jun 2016 08:57:27 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] powercap/rapl: add support for denverton |
| |
On Tue, 31 May 2016, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 05/31/2016 01:41 PM, Jacob Pan wrote: > > --- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c > > +++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c > > @@ -1137,6 +1137,7 @@ static const struct x86_cpu_id rapl_ids[] __initconst = { > > RAPL_CPU(0x57, rapl_defaults_hsw_server),/* Knights Landing */ > > RAPL_CPU(0x8E, rapl_defaults_core),/* Kabylake */ > > RAPL_CPU(0x9E, rapl_defaults_core),/* Kabylake */ > > + RAPL_CPU(0x5F, rapl_defaults_core),/* Denverton micro server */ > > {} > > }; > > Not to derail this individual patch... but do we really want to continue > open-coding CPU model/family combos all over arch/x86? > > For instance, arch/x86/events/intel/core.c has: > > > case 142: /* 14nm Kabylake Mobile */ > > case 158: /* 14nm Kabylake Desktop */ > > case 78: /* 14nm Skylake Mobile */ > > case 94: /* 14nm Skylake Desktop */ > > case 85: /* 14nm Skylake Server */ > > Which duplicates the two Kabylake family numbers from the RAPL_CPU() > context above (just in decimal instead of hex). > > Should we just start sticking these things in a header like: > > #define X86_INTEL_FAMILY_KABYLAKE1 0x8E > #define X86_INTEL_FAMILY_KABYLAKE2 0x9E > #define X86_INTEL_FAMILY_DENVERTON 0x5F > > So we have this: > > RAPL_CPU(X86_INTEL_FAMILY_DENVERTON, rapl_defaults_core), > > instead of having to explain our magic number in a comment.
Yes please.
| |