Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Rudolf, > > On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 20:56:54 +0100, Rudolf Marek wrote: >> Thanks for the review. I'm attaching fixed version. >> >> Following patch adds warning about wrong CPU temperature readouts on all fam f >> rev f revision of CPUs. >> >> Used switch statement, more code changes follows. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rudolf Marek <r.marek at assembler.cz> > > I've applied it, thanks. Note that I added a "break" at the end of the > case 0xf, otherwise it's an invitation to get things wrong in the next > patch... > >>> If all revision F and later CPUs are affected by the errata and the >>> temperature reported is never correct, we should simply blacklist these >>> CPUs. I guess this isn't the case, otherwise you'd have proposed that >>> we do that long ago. >> Yes. >> >>> If most but not all of these CPUs are affected, then it would make >>> sense to disable them by default but give the user a chance to still >>> enable them (using a module parameter.) >> I tried hard to get this info from AMD. All versions are affected, but some may >> be fixed/not tested. >> >>> If there are more revision F and later CPUs with working thermal >>> diodes, and working ones can be told from non-working ones based on the >>> exact revision, we could implement blacklisting and/or whitelisting >>> base on the revision. >> The errata is for all revs. > > For what it's worth, Jordan Crouse seems to think that blacklisting on > a per-revision basis may still work. I think it can. A much larger sample would probably need to be taken to be completely sure - but I hope that we'll find that the problem is deterministic enough for a blacklist. I think we would agree that a blacklist would be the more user friendly solution. Jordan
