From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757886AbZEMIEG (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 04:04:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757958AbZEMIDp (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 04:03:45 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:49567 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754887AbZEMIDl (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 04:03:41 -0400 To: Andrew Morton Cc: Jaswinder Singh Rajput , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86 maintainers , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: cpu/proc.c adding extended_cpuid_level for /proc/cpuinfo From: Andi Kleen References: <1242112482.3283.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090512232122.61f2d7c5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 10:03:39 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20090512232122.61f2d7c5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (Andrew Morton's message of "Tue, 12 May 2009 23:21:22 -0700") Message-ID: <878wl1mntw.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton writes: > On Tue, 12 May 2009 12:44:42 +0530 Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote: > >> + "ext cpuid level\t: 0x%x\n" > > It's unobvious what "ext" means. External? > > Can we make it "extended cpuid level"? > > One would hope that google(extended cpuid level) tells you what an > extended cpuid level is, but alas, unclear. AMD has an own cpuid range in 0x8000_0000+. But it's only useful if you actually access it using cpuid. Everyone who needs it already needs to call cpuid and if they do that they can as well retrieve it by themselves. Without accessing CPUID it has no value at whatsoever. It would also seem pretty dumb to spend a few thousand cycles getting it from the kernel when you can as well get it directly from CPUID and you need to have that code anyways. The useful information in 8000_0000+ is all reported by the kernel anyways. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.