From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751860AbbEHIX0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2015 04:23:26 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:52181 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750842AbbEHIXW (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2015 04:23:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 10:23:20 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Len Brown , x86@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: speed cpu_up by quirking cpu_init_udelay Message-ID: <20150508082319.GA4137@pd.tnic> References: <418898b5b9a6d76e7fbbd2af7cc988de1a5a287d.1431066425.git.len.brown@intel.com> <170f6f6e9ac4aa4d8ec1ed5000bee95463897337.1431066425.git.len.brown@intel.com> <20150508075111.GA5403@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150508075111.GA5403@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. --