Re: [patch 09/22] cpufreq: Convert to new X86 CPU match macros
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 3:18 PM Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de wrote:
The new macro set has a consistent namespace and uses C99 initializers instead of the grufty C89 ones.
Get rid the of most local macro wrappers for consistency. The ones which make sense for readability are renamed to X86_MATCH*.
In the centrino driver this also removes the two extra duplicates of family 6 model 13 which have no value at all.
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? Also, NULL vs. 0?
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
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:30 PM Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de wrote:
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
Hmm... Do we have family 15 for Intel? Perhaps I missed something... Or is it for any family?
Andy Shevchenko andy.shevchenko@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:30 PM Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de wrote:
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
Hmm... Do we have family 15 for Intel? Perhaps I missed something... Or is it for any family?
Pentium 4
participants (2)
-
Andy Shevchenko -
Thomas Gleixner