On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 11:44 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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?
OK, sure. I will put back the intel_pmc_core_ids structure and the
x86_match_cpu().
Thanks,
Rajat
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
