lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/cpu: Rename Denverton and Gemini Lake
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:16 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > It's even worse with Silvermont.
> > >
> > > So no, the interesting information is the UARCH and the variant of that,
> >
> > With Uarch you mean the core uarch? That doesn't really work for
> > something like Silvermont or Goldmont.
> >
> > > e.g. UARCH_CLIENT, UARCH_SERVER, UARCH_WHATEVER. All the magic Code Names
> >
> > Right your scheme totally doesn't work on Silvermont because there
> > are multiple client variants.
>
> We have that for the big cores as well:
>
> #define INTEL_FAM6_HASWELL_CORE 0x3C
> #define INTEL_FAM6_HASWELL_X 0x3F
> #define INTEL_FAM6_HASWELL_ULT 0x45
> #define INTEL_FAM6_HASWELL_GT3E 0x46
>
> Why would we treat ATOM differently? It's all the same scheme:
>
> SILVERMONT_CLIENT 0x37 Baytrail, Valleyview
> SILVERMONT_SERVER 0x40 Avaton, Rangely

0x5D SoFIA is another Silvermont variant on the client side, and doesn't
fit well in that scheme I'd say. Calling it SILVERMONT_SOFIA would
probably be best here so people can figure out what it is.

Arnd

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-08 16:07    [W:0.097 / U:2.840 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site