On 10/11/21 12:21 PM, Winiarska, Iwona wrote: > On Mon, 2021-10-04 at 21:03 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 01:31:20PM +0200, Iwona Winiarska wrote: >>> Baseboard management controllers (BMC) often run Linux but are usually >>> implemented with non-X86 processors. They can use PECI to access package >>> config space (PCS) registers on the host CPU and since some information, >>> e.g. figuring out the core count, can be obtained using different >>> registers on different CPU generations, they need to decode the family >>> and model. >>> >>> Move the data from arch/x86/include/asm/intel-family.h into a new file >>> include/linux/x86/intel-family.h so that it can be used by other >>> architectures. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Iwona Winiarska <iwona.winiarska@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> To limit tree-wide changes and help people that were expecting >>> intel-family defines in arch/x86 to find it more easily without going >>> through git history, we're not removing the original header >>> completely, we're keeping it as a "stub" that includes the new one. >>> If there is a consensus that the tree-wide option is better, >>> we can choose this approach. >> Why can't the linux/ namespace header include the x86 one so that >> nothing changes for arch/x86/? > Same reason why PECI can't just include arch/x86 directly (we're building for > ARM, not x86). If you're in include/linux/x86-hacks.h, what prevents you from doing #include "../../arch/x86/include/asm/intel-family.h" ? In the end, to the compiler, it's just a file in a weird location in the tree. I think I'd prefer one weird include to moving that file out of arch/x86.
