lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86, amd: Make check_c1e_idle explicit
This patch needs a lot better documentation.  For one thing, it needs an
explicit patch comment!

In particular, is this a contract that fam 0x12+ will behave differently?

-hpa

On 12/10/2009 05:32 AM, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
>
> CC: stable@kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/process.c | 14 ++++++--------
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> index ea54ce8..1bf98b1 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> @@ -494,21 +494,19 @@ static int __cpuinit mwait_usable(const struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> }
>
> /*
> - * Check for AMD CPUs, which have potentially C1E support
> + * Check for AMD CPUs, which potentially use SMI or hardware initiated C1E
> */
> static int __cpuinit check_c1e_idle(const struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> {
> if (c->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_AMD)
> return 0;
>
> - if (c->x86 < 0x0F)
> - return 0;
> -
> - /* Family 0x0f models < rev F do not have C1E */
> - if (c->x86 == 0x0f && c->x86_model < 0x40)
> - return 0;
> + if ((c->x86 == 0x0F && c->x86_model >= 0x40) ||
> + (c->x86 == 0x10) ||
> + (c->x86 == 0x11))
> + return 1;
>
> - return 1;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static cpumask_var_t c1e_mask;



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-11 02:07    [W:0.039 / U:0.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site