Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:30 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 3:18 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL_FEATURE(INTEL, 6, 9, X86_FEATURE_EST, NULL), >> >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL_FEATURE(INTEL, 6, 13, X86_FEATURE_EST, NULL), >> >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL_FEATURE(INTEL, 15, 3, X86_FEATURE_EST, NULL), >> >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL_FEATURE(INTEL, 15, 4, X86_FEATURE_EST, NULL), >> > >> >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL(INTEL, 6, 0x8, 0), >> >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL(INTEL, 6, 0xb, 0), >> >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL(INTEL, 15, 0x2, 0), >> > >> >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL(INTEL, 6, 0x8, 0), >> >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL(INTEL, 6, 0xb, 0), >> >> + X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL(INTEL, 15, 0x2, 0), >> > >> > Perhaps use names instead of 6 and 15? >> >> Thought about that and did not come up with anyting useful. FAM6 vs. 6 >> is not really any better > > Hmm... Do we have family 15 for Intel? Perhaps I missed something... > Or is it for any family? Pentium 4
