lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 2.6.26, PAT and AMD family 6
    On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl> wrote:
    > > On 07-05-08 21:39, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > > HPA asked about why they used a whitelist instead of a blacklist in [1].
    > > The answer (in [2]) was that those are the CPU's that are guaranteed to
    > > properly support PAT (no known or potential errata). However in [3] Dean
    > > Gaudet complained about the AMD detection code having a limit that the Intel
    > > detection code did not.
    > > >
    > >
    > > And in that thread both HPA and Ingo Molnar -- two of the three x86 arch
    > > maintainers -- agreed that a whitelist is the wrong approach, with HPA
    > > commenting that it lead to vendor lockin. And here I am talkng to an
    > > Intel employee about why my entire AMD CPU family was excluded.
    > >
    > > So why is this thing now in mainline with Ingo's sign-off and not a line
    > > of changelog to explain it?
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > ^^^^^---- Here in Rene's patch...
    > > >
    > >
    > > Yinghai's.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > Wouldn't this be better if written the same as the Intel side, ie:
    > > > if (c->x86 >= 0xF && (c->x86 == 6 && c->x86_model == 7))
    > > > (or even with c->x86_model >= 7 ?)
    >
    > i only can access opteron Rev E, Rev F, and Quad core. So i enabled that.
    >
    > now, enable other one by one...

    may add enable_pat command line, so other guys could test if their
    cpus are ok with PAT...

    YH


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-05-07 22:21    [W:3.362 / U:0.272 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site