Messages in this thread |  | | From | Christian Ludloff <> | | Date | Mon, 14 Apr 2025 21:18:18 +0200 | | Subject | Re: [PATCH -v2] x86/cpu: Add CPU model number for Bartlett Lake CPUs with Raptor Cove cores |
| |
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 6:21 PM Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote: > > > The macros refer to products. > > > The comments refer to cores. > > > > > Consistency, please. > > > Sanity, please. > > > > Amen! > > PeterZ has been very vocal that he wants the "sane" way to be making the "#define" > name be based on the core rather than the product. That way multiple products using > the same core show up together in switch statements for model specific features like > power and performance counters. > > This does mean we have a transition between legacy names that were using the > SoC product codename and modern ones that use the core codename. > > Can the X86 maintainers please get in a huddle and define a naming > policy. This discussion keeps happening.
Consider a two-level abstraction.
One which gets "looked up" from FMS – fundamentally that is what the existing file is trying to achieve, right?
Another which gets "looked up" from core (e.g. RPC) or product (e.g. RPL,BTL) or whatever-else-is-used-often.
-- Christian
|  |