Skip to content
Commit 85b08180 authored by Dave Hansen's avatar Dave Hansen
Browse files

x86/cpu: Expose only stepping min/max interface



The x86_match_cpu() infrastructure can match CPU steppings. Since
there are only 16 possible steppings, the matching infrastructure goes
all out and stores the stepping match as a bitmap. That means it can
match any possible steppings in a single list entry. Fun.

But it exposes this bitmap to each of the X86_MATCH_*() helpers when
none of them really need a bitmap. It makes up for this by exporting a
helper (X86_STEPPINGS()) which converts a contiguous stepping range
into the bitmap which every single user leverages.

Instead of a bitmap, have the main helper for this sort of thing
(X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPS()) just take a stepping range. This ends up
actually being even more compact than before.

Leave the helper in place (renamed to __X86_STEPPINGS()) to make it
more clear what is going on instead of just having a random GENMASK()
in the middle of an already complicated macro.

One oddity that I hit was this macro:

       X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPS(vfm, X86_STEPPING_MIN, max_stepping, issues)

It *could* have been converted over to take a min/max stepping value
for each entry. But that would have been a bit too verbose and would
prevent the one oddball in the list (INTEL_COMETLAKE_L stepping 0)
from sticking out.

Instead, just have it take a *maximum* stepping and imply that the match
is from 0=>max_stepping. This is functional for all the cases now and
also retains the nice property of having INTEL_COMETLAKE_L stepping 0
stick out like a sore thumb.

skx_cpuids[] is goofy. It uses the stepping match but encodes all
possible steppings. Just use a normal, non-stepping match helper.

Suggested-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241213185129.65527B2A%40davehans-spike.ostc.intel.com
parent b8e10c86
Loading
Loading
Loading
Loading
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment