On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 06:02:48PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> IIRC, Intel was against using project names, and this "recommendation"
> was lifted some time ago. So if you think that these names are of some
> benefits to users, I'm all for longer, more descriptive names that are
> easy to remember.
BTW, I wonder if we add a bunch of new names to the table it isn't a right
time to also introduce macros for some common PTA_* flag combinations,
because otherwise it will become hardly maintainable.
So say have PTA_COREI7_BASE defined to the current corei7 PTA_* flags,
PTA_COREI7_AVX_BASE defined to PTA_COREI7_BASE | flags that corei7-avx
and all newer core* CPUs have, etc. Perhaps not for every single chip
(the pre-core2 ones certainly don't need that, they have only a few) and
perhaps say for every tock and tick, which usually has fewer new features,
would just or in stuff to that. Guess PTA_BDVER1_BASE and PTA_BTVER1_BASE
would be useful too.
Jakub
