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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.