> >> ELSE
> >> VRM_NONE
>
> I would say VRM_UNKNOWN. You don't know about any other CPU, especially
> not any *future* CPU.
Sure
> Ruik, can we actually forget about the stepping (at least for the
> existing CPUs)?
Yes we can, but we must care about extended family and extended model in
future
>
> If we don't go with a simple (but large) lookup table, there are two
> choices left: simple algorithmic and rules-based (much like dmi_scan.c
> does). I think that the latter is the easier to maintain. Rules would
> look like:
>
> { cpu manufacturer, family, from product, to product, (from stepping, to
> stepping), VRM }
>
> If stepping (or even product) is not relevant we define a negative
> constant standing for "any" and use it.
Before I answer this.
I think We dont need that header file. I need only some masks from that
#defines so I can live without that. It wont be use in table concept
anyway.
Output from CPUID:
eax = cpuid_eax(1);
Bits Description
0..3 Stepping
4..7 Model c->x86_model
8..11 Family c->x86
12..13 Processor type
16..19 Extended Model
20..27 Extended Family
??? unknown value?
-- dont care
F in Family => refer to extended family.
Exteded model seems unused
Here is the table:
c->x86_vendor==VENDOR_AMD
========================
Family|Model|ExtFamily|ExtModel
===============================
6 -- -- -- VRM_INTEL_9x; //athlons etc
F 4 0 ??? perhaps 9x //Athlon 64
F 5 0 ??? VRM_AMD_OPTERON //Opteron
c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL
=================================
Family|Model|ExtFamily|ExtModel
===============================
6 B -- -- VRM_INTEL_85 /* 0xB Tualatin */
6 9 -- -- VRM_INTEL_85 // this is also 0.13um
6 -- -- -- VRM_INTEL_8x //rest P6 CPU's
7 ??????????????????????? ??????????? //Itanium
F 3 0 -- VRM_INTEL_10x //Pentium P4 (0.09 um)
F -- 0 -- VRM_INTEL_9x //All P4 before Prescott
F ??? 1 ??? ?????????? //Itanium 2
For completeness only
=====================
F 0 0 -- VRM_INTEL_9x //Pentium IV (0.18 um)
F 1 0 -- VRM_INTEL_9x //Pentium IV (0.18 um)
F 2 0 -- VRM_INTEL_9x //Pentium IV (0.13 um)
> I have a Tualatin on my laptop but unfortunately no hardware monitoring
> chip on it, and I don't think the BIOS will let me know the voltage...
> I'll still try this evening.
Only try if that code really finds it :) If it will produce right
number...
>
> >> 2) how to or who will incorporate this into the drivers? (Khali maybe?)
>
> The good thing here is that it can be done step by step. We can just add
> the function to i2c_sensor, then convert existing drivers to it as time
> permits. I don't think we want a separate modue for it, do we?
No function will be great I think.
One think in closing. I found Itanium2 VID and they are different from all
above...
I guess I should implement some code that will go through the tables it
the format I proposed?
Regards
Rudolf
