Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86/mrst: change clock selection logic to support medfield

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Thomas Gleixner
Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - 7:36 am

On Fri, 7 May 2010, Jacob Pan wrote:


Yuck, why is this in a mrst specific header ?


enum please, also 


 apbt sucks performance wise, so why do you consider it a better
 choice than lapic + broadcast ?


  The logic is confusing. 


 This is not Penwell specific at all. The ratio can be read out on all
 Core based CPUs either from MSR_PLATFORM_ID[12:8] or
 MSR_PERF_STAT[44:40] depending on XE operation enabled
 (MSR_PERF_STAT[31] == 1)

 This should be made general available and not burried into the mrst
 code.


 I guess the 111 is Penwell/MRST specific, right ?

 According to SDM we have anyway different results for the various CPU
 families, but we should utilize this in a generic way and have the
 translation tables for the various CPUs in one place.


  Yikes. From which Intel cookbook is this ?

  Aside of that we have that info in boot_cpu_info already, don't we ?
  So there is neither a requirement for the extra cpuid call nor for
  the extra mrst_cpu_chip id magic.




  Are we going to add one of those for each new family ? This is
  really redundant bloat with no value.

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: RFD: Should we remove the HLT check? (was Re: [PATCH ..., Arjan van de Ven, (Fri May 7, 1:33 pm)
Re: RFD: Should we remove the HLT check? (was Re: [PATCH ..., Arjan van de Ven, (Fri May 7, 3:35 pm)
Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86/mrst: change clock selection logic to ..., Thomas Gleixner, (Tue May 11, 7:36 am)
Re: [PATCH 7/8] x86/mrst: add vrtc driver which serves as ..., Thomas Gleixner, (Tue May 18, 12:38 am)