On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 9:43 PM Rajat Jain <rajatja@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 9:51 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:36 PM Rajat Jain <rajatja@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > + switch (boot_cpu_data.x86_model) {
> >
> > I didn't get why this should be boot CPU?
> > Otherwise, leave the structure and leave the x86_match_cpu() call.
>
> I didn't quite understand the concern. The x86_match_cpu() also uses
> the same boot_cpu_data that I've used, am I missing something?
It's a detail of implementation, and instead of continue using nice
helpers, you open coded the similar.
Why?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
