Messages in this thread | | | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [patch 09/22] cpufreq: Convert to new X86 CPU match macros | Date | Fri, 20 Mar 2020 21:30:29 +0100 |
| |
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 3:18 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL_FEATURE(INTEL, 6, 9, X86_FEATURE_EST, NULL), >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL_FEATURE(INTEL, 6, 13, X86_FEATURE_EST, NULL), >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL_FEATURE(INTEL, 15, 3, X86_FEATURE_EST, NULL), >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL_FEATURE(INTEL, 15, 4, X86_FEATURE_EST, NULL), > >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL(INTEL, 6, 0x8, 0), >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL(INTEL, 6, 0xb, 0), >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL(INTEL, 15, 0x2, 0), > >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL(INTEL, 6, 0x8, 0), >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL(INTEL, 6, 0xb, 0), >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL(INTEL, 15, 0x2, 0), > > Perhaps use names instead of 6 and 15?
Thought about that and did not come up with anyting useful. FAM6 vs. 6 is not really any better
> Also, NULL vs. 0?
Both works, but yes I used mostly NULL.
Thanks,
tglx
| |