Hi,
I was about to apply this because I assumed it was the same patch
I sent in March, but then I found this:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:26:41AM -0500, Babu Moger wrote:
> From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Instead of having a collection of macros that need to be used in
> complex expressions to build CPUID data, define a CPUCacheInfo
> struct that can hold information about a given cache. Helper
> functions will take a CPUCacheInfo struct as input to encode
> CPUID leaves for a cache.
>
> This will help us ensure consistency between cache information
> CPUID leaves, and make the existing inconsistencies in CPUID info
> more visible.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Babu Moger <babu.moger@xxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Geoffrey McRae <geoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
> -#define L2_ASSOCIATIVITY 16
[...]
> /*FIXME: CPUID leaf 0x80000006 is inconsistent with leaves 2 & 4 */
> +static CPUCacheInfo l2_cache_amd = {
[...]
> + .associativity = 8,
[...]
> +};
[...]
> case 0x80000006:
[...]
> - *ecx = (L2_SIZE_KB_AMD << 16) | \
> - (AMD_ENC_ASSOC(L2_ASSOCIATIVITY) << 12) | \
> - (L2_LINES_PER_TAG << 8) | (L2_LINE_SIZE);
[...]
> + encode_cache_cpuid80000006(&l2_cache_amd,
> + cpu->enable_l3_cache ? &l3_cache : NULL,
> + ecx, edx);
[...]
The structs added by this patch are supposed to represent the
legacy cache sizes, and must match the old code. My original
patch set l2_cache_amd.associativity=16 because of that.
This patch changes 0x80000006 from associativity=16 to
associativity=8. Why?
--
Eduardo
