Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Wed, 4 May 2022 18:28:51 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "hdegoede@redhat.com" <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        "markgross@kernel.org" <markgross@kernel.org>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "corbet@lwn.net" <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com" 
        <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        "Joseph, Jithu" <jithu.joseph@intel.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        "rostedt@goodmis.org" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org" 
        <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
        "patches@lists.linux.dev" <patches@lists.linux.dev>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/10] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Add stub driver for
 In-Field Scan
Message-ID: <YnKpw2kGY2FEFWcW@zn.tnic>
References: <20220422200219.2843823-1-tony.luck@intel.com>
 <20220428153849.295779-1-tony.luck@intel.com>
 <20220428153849.295779-4-tony.luck@intel.com>
 <87zgjxk2kt.ffs@tglx>
 <eedc3fa9ec47494590be66ad66f90bb7@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <eedc3fa9ec47494590be66ad66f90bb7@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 04:24:50PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > We really don't need more match id tables with gazillions of CPU models.
> 
> Sadly we do :-(

So what was the reasoning about CPUID bits being so expensive so that we
need to match models? Ditto for the splitlock situation - that thing is
supported on a bunch of models but nope, not a CPUID bit in sight. What
was the convincing argument that made hw folks give a CPUID bit to the
PPIN thing? Perhaps we could use it there too. :)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette