On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 09:38:46PM +0000, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 03:42:31PM +0000, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> >> Decoding the implementor and part number of the CPU id in the CPU ID
>> >> register is needed by KVM, so we factor it out to share the code.
>> >>
>> >> Reviewed-by: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <c.dall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> [...]
>
>> >> +static inline unsigned int __attribute_const__ read_cpuid_implementor(void)
>> >> +{
>> >> + return (read_cpuid_id() & 0xFF000000) >> 24;
>> >> +}
>> >> +
>> >> +static inline unsigned int __attribute_const__ read_cpuid_part_number(void)
>> >> +{
>> >> + return (read_cpuid_id() & 0xFFF0);
>> >> +}
>> >
>> > Perhaps this should take the implementor as an argument, given that the
>> > part number is described differently between implementors. The xscale
>> > stuff can then move in here (we'll need to check the xscale docs in case
>> > perf is using a subfield -- I can't remember off-hand).
>
> [...]
>
>> > If you stick this one in a separate patch, I can take it via the perf
>> > tree (along with the CPUID rework above).
>> >
>> thanks,
>> I sent a separate patch.
>
> Looks like we still have the ugly xscale cpuid parsing inline. Could you
> move it as I suggested, please?
>
yes, sorry I missed that one. I went hunting through some old Xscale
docs, but cannot find anything that specifies more details about the
part number (or "product number" as intel calls it), so I preserved
the existing bit parsing.
-Christoffer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
