Re: [PATCH -v2] x86/cpu: Add CPU model number for Bartlett Lake CPUs with Raptor Cove cores
Christian Ludloff <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.x86-cpuid,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAKSQd8WsKnTk35PUCD_kM+Ox7yhBY23nMoE1R0Y3=U1OUrSRbQ@mail.gmail.com> |
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 6:21 PM Luck, Tony <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The macros refer to products. > > > The comments refer to cores. > > > > > Consistency, please. > > > Sanity, please. > > > > Amen! > > PeterZ has been very vocal that he wants the "sane" way to be making the "#define" > name be based on the core rather than the product. That way multiple products using > the same core show up together in switch statements for model specific features like > power and performance counters. > > This does mean we have a transition between legacy names that were using the > SoC product codename and modern ones that use the core codename. > > Can the X86 maintainers please get in a huddle and define a naming > policy. This discussion keeps happening. Consider a two-level abstraction. One which gets "looked up" from FMS – fundamentally that is what the existing file is trying to achieve, right? Another which gets "looked up" from core (e.g. RPC) or product (e.g. RPL,BTL) or whatever-else-is-used-often. -- Christian