From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2704FC433E0 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:31:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0005164F8C for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:31:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229713AbhCQAac (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Mar 2021 20:30:32 -0400 Received: from mga12.intel.com ([192.55.52.136]:61621 "EHLO mga12.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229681AbhCQAaP (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Mar 2021 20:30:15 -0400 IronPort-SDR: qSB9Hi5s96XoX4ewzQJif4PhrgsiDqrAExHPkGopHQ6EYH8VXBeY3J7pIo5a9vKsGe4YfdD+OE qHLwHERkfZXg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9925"; a="168629941" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,254,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="168629941" Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Mar 2021 17:30:14 -0700 IronPort-SDR: iU74D+PnG+FCfDSM1Id5HlD81J/lHNM6AIKW/6A5oEv2Kknv+2oa9aDpBfAvZMqP9Jglnpnyue yTciKHwQxRNg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,254,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="602026427" Received: from shbuild999.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.147.94]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Mar 2021 17:30:12 -0700 Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 08:30:11 +0800 From: Feng Tang To: Sean Christopherson Cc: Borislav Petkov , X86 ML , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tools/x86/kcpuid: Add AMD leaf 0x8000001E Message-ID: <20210317003011.GD49151@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> References: <20210315125901.30315-1-bp@alien8.de> <20210315125901.30315-2-bp@alien8.de> <20210316074223.GC49151@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210316142825.GB18003@zn.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Boris and Sean, On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:04:44AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 03:42:23PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote: > > > Also I'm wondering for some basic leaf and extended leaf which > > > may has different definition for different vendors, do we need > > > to seprate the csv to a general one and vendor specific ones. > > > > Do you know of such? No. When I read the patch, I googled some doc for the registers definition which I found different from Intel's manual. > > > > Because AFAIK vendors own, more or less, each range. Like, Intel owns > > the base range and AMD the extended so there should be no conflicts > > actually... > > There are no known conflicts, and all sorts of things would break horribly if > any CPU vendor (or hypervsior) were careless enough to redefine a CPUID bit. Great to know these sharing policy between vendors, which will save many troubles for us :) Also I just took a look at code of cpuid, which has some functions like print_leafX_vendorA print_leafX_vendorB print_leafX_vendorC but as you mentioned, I didn't find obvious overlaps of specific bits. Thanks, Feng