[x86/cpuid] Question regarding historic leaf 0x80000000 code
"Ahmed S. Darwish" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.x86-cpuid,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <Z9xtfC5pL-g4LYvK@lx-t490> |
Hi hpa,
As you probably know by now, we're working on a centralized "CPUID table"
data model, on top of the cleanups at:
https://lore.kernel.org/x86-cpuid/[email protected]
https://lore.kernel.org/x86-cpuid/[email protected]
https://lore.kernel.org/x86-cpuid/[email protected]
The idea is to remove all the direct CPUID queries from the x86 code, and
access a pre-filled table instead (with caveats outside the scope of this
question.)
While changing the CPUID queries one by one, I've stumbled with:
=> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
void get_cpu_cap(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
{
...
/* AMD-defined flags: level 0x80000001 */
eax = cpuid_eax(0x80000000);
c->extended_cpuid_level = eax;
if ((eax & 0xffff0000) == 0x80000000) {
if (eax >= 0x80000001) {
cpuid(0x80000001, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
c->x86_capability[CPUID_8000_0001_ECX] = ecx;
c->x86_capability[CPUID_8000_0001_EDX] = edx;
}
}
...
}
You've contributed that snippet here:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/history/history.git/commit/?h=2.4.0-test11pre5&id=67ad24e6d39c3
Do you remember what was the rationale for the "if (eax & 0xffff0000) ==
0x80000000" check?
You've also contriubted a similar check to head_32.S:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
/* Check if extended functions are implemented */
movl $0x80000000, %eax
cpuid
/* Value must be in the range 0x80000001 to 0x8000ffff */
subl $0x80000001, %eax
cmpl $(0x8000ffff-0x80000001), %eax
ja .Lenable_paging
So I would assume, it would be safe to have a similar check in our
centralized "system CPUID table" scanner.
In all cases, if you know more details, it would be great to know, so
that I add it in the centralized CPUID table patch queue changelog (in a
separate patch.)
Thanks a lot!
--
Ahmed S. Darwish
Linutronix GmbH