Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751795AbXEYAAo (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 May 2007 20:00:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753727AbXEYAAP (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 May 2007 20:00:15 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:6846 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753550AbXEYAAN convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 May 2007 20:00:13 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.14,575,1170662400"; d="scan'208";a="90298772" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Subject: RE: [PATCH] Display Intel Dynamic Acceleration feature in /proc/cpuinfo Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 17:00:11 -0700 Message-ID: <653FFBB4508B9042B5D43DC9E18836F5EE12ED@scsmsx415.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <46561E55.7090107@zytor.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PATCH] Display Intel Dynamic Acceleration feature in /proc/cpuinfo Thread-Index: AceeWoFcI5gNMFjhTAuDmsDz3PHeBgAA8dSg From: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: "Andi Kleen" , "Dave Jones" , "Andrew Morton" , "Brown, Len" , "linux-kernel" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 May 2007 00:00:12.0342 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA873D60:01C79E5F] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1780 Lines: 51 >-----Original Message----- >From: H. Peter Anvin [mailto:hpa@zytor.com] >Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:23 PM >To: Pallipadi, Venkatesh >Cc: Andi Kleen; Dave Jones; Andrew Morton; Brown, Len; linux-kernel >Subject: Re: [PATCH] Display Intel Dynamic Acceleration >feature in /proc/cpuinfo > >Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: >> >> Yes. But it only has 3 features defined right now. 2 in EAX >and one in >> ECX. Should I use 2 new words for these bits or just use the software >> defined bits as in my earlier patch? >> > >Oh for heaven's sake. Could you please do the world a favour and shoot >your CPUID architect? > >The real answer depends on how you expect it to grow in the future. >Intel has a piss-poor record at being consistent in this matter, which >speaks for a more ad hoc approach, but if there really is a sane growth >path going forward, then go ahead and define two new words. > The way new Intel features are being exposed in CPUID is kind of changing. Now we have different CPUID leafs for different kind of features with each of them growing much slowly. I mean, there is monitor-mwait related features in CPUID 5 powermanagement features in CPUID 6 EAX, ECX Perfmon features in CPUID 10 This does not fit well with the way we use the feature words in Linux. Probably it is better to have one new word for new Intel features and add bits from all CPUIDs as they come. I will take a look at all the other fields and try for a better solution than adding new words for different CPUIDs like above. Thanks, Venki - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/