Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: speed cpu_up by quirking cpu_init_udelay

[Borislav Petkov]

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.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/