lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] x86: speed cpu_up by quirking cpu_init_udelay
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 09:51:11AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > +static const struct x86_cpu_id init_udelay_ids[] = {
> > + { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 0x6, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
> > + { X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x16, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
> > + { X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x15, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
> > + { X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x14, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
> > + { X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x12, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
> > + { X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x11, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
> > + { X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x10, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
> > + { X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0xF, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
> > + {}
> > +};
>
> So since especially AMD likes to iterate the family upwards, why not
> make this a simple open ended check:
>
> if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL &&
> boot_cpu_data.x86 >= 6 ||
> boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD &&
> boot_cpu_data.x86 >= 15) {
>
> ... 0 delay ...
> }
>
> ... which is much smaller and more future proof?

I was about to say that...

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-08 10:41    [W:0.089 / U:28.844 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site