Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190226062012.23746-1-lenb@kernel.org> <20190226190512.GR2861@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAJvTdK=SGZy+vbTcCKAmBeQSkeuAW0UxEpKXY2YNvmUofFXNUQ@mail.gmail.com> <20190430093338.GA3518@zn.tnic>
In-Reply-To: <20190430093338.GA3518@zn.tnic>
From:   Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 30 Apr 2019 14:46:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJvTdKkCc0AOiFV5fJ2pwbpQ5iYzjGVotPExJHVOs5CsK8GOsg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/14] v2 multi-die/package topology support
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:33 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:

> So that die thing has only small relevance to some software, as you say:
>
> "These topology changes primarily impact parts of the kernel and some
> applciations that care about package MSR scope."
>
> So if there's no real need to add it there, then it probably shouldn't
> be added. The topology is already too complex - so much so, that tools
> are even generating PDFs from it :)

Agreed.
Let's keep /proc/cpuinfo simple.
If a case emerges where it makes sense to add more detail there, it is
trivial do add later.

thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center