> > > > > If the CPU defines and the new macro are to be kept in architecture > > > > > code, > > > > > maybe include arch/x86/include/asm/cpu_device_id.h from > > > > > linux/peci.cpu.h. > > > > > That would not be worse than today's include of intel-family.h. > > > > > > > > Guenter, > > > > > > > > Looks like I did that to resolve one of the other peci problems. Because I > > > > already have: > > > > > > > > #include "../../arch/x86/include/asm/cpu_device_id.h" > > > > #include "../../arch/x86/include/asm/intel-family.h" > > > > > > > > in <linux/peci_cpu.h> > > > > > > > > Simply deleting the include from cputemp.c builds OK in the > > > > context of all the other changes in my patch series. > > > > > > Hi Tony, > > > > > > It won't build on non-x86, as cpu_device_id.h includes <asm/intel-family.h>. > > > I think the simplest way to solve the issue is to provide a copy of VFM_* > > > macros > > > and X86_VENDOR_INTEL in include/linux/peci-cpu.h. > > > > > > > I think the proper fix would really be to move the include files to a > > generic directory, such as include/linux/x86/ or include/linux/cpu/x86/. > > After all, they _are_ now needed in non-Intel code. > > Yeah, that was the initial proposal: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210803113134.2262882-2-iwona.winiarska@xxxxxxxxx/ > > Unfortunately, it ended up being simplified to just include arch/x86 directly. Reading through that other thread (Iwona: thanks for the link) it seems that moving the x86 include files out of arch/x86/include/asm has been soundly rejected. I'm going to take Iwona's advice above and copy the VFM_* macros. -Tony
