OK, I'll rework this patch. Huacai On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 04:15:07PM +0100, James Hogan wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:06:55PM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote: >> > diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/proc.c b/arch/mips/kernel/proc.c >> > index 4eff2ae..78db63a 100644 >> > --- a/arch/mips/kernel/proc.c >> > +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/proc.c >> >> > @@ -62,6 +63,9 @@ static int show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m, void *v) >> > seq_printf(m, fmt, __cpu_name[n], >> > (version >> 4) & 0x0f, version & 0x0f, >> > (fp_vers >> 4) & 0x0f, fp_vers & 0x0f); >> > + if (__cpu_full_name[n]) >> > + seq_printf(m, "model name\t\t: %s @ %uMHz\n", >> > + __cpu_full_name[n], mips_hpt_frequency / 500000); >> >> If the core frequency is useful (I can imagine it being useful for >> humans), maybe it should be on a separate line. >> >> This also assumes that the mips_hpt_frequency is half the core >> frequency, which may not universally be the case. Perhaps that should be >> abstracted too (at some point, I suppose it doesn't matter right away). > > Indeed, there is a number of cores where the counter is incrementing at > the full clock rate and some - I think this was the IDT 5230/5260 class > of devices where the clock rate can be configured through a cold reset > time bitstream but the rate in use can not be detected by software in > a configuration register, so it has to be meassured by comparing to > another known clock. Whops.. > > Making the clock part of the name is probably sensible on x86 where there > seem to be different CPU packages being marketed for different clock > rates, so this is more of a marketing name in contrast to an actual > core type. > > It's not like on MIPS we're not suffering from creative CPU naming as > well. It all started in '91 with when the R4000 with its 8k primary > caches was upgraded and then primarily due to its 16k caches sold as > the R4400. From a software perspective there isn't much of a difference > so calling the R4400 an R4000 is sensible but users might miss an inch > or two if their R4400 is called a lowly R4000 ;-) > > Ralf >
