On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 11:37:12AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 07 September 2011 10:32:27 Dave Martin wrote: > > Note that the hwcaps info in /proc/cpuinfo is generated from the same > > hwcaps word exposed via auxv so, for now, the information is identical. > > > > I would normally rate parsing /proc/cpuinfo as being a bad idea, but > > /proc/cpuinfo is probably the only source of the part ID information, > > for now. This is a bit unfortunate, especially since the format of > > /proc/cpuinfo could change at some point in the future, but in practice > > it seems to have been pretty stable with respect to this particular > > piece of information. > > > We do try to keep any ABI stable, including /proc/cpuinfo. I would > generally consider it a bug when it breaks.
Agreed, but there are occasional changes, such is rmk pulling out the cache configuration information when he considered it had become too unsustainable. As a general rule, the more generic a piece of information in /proc/cpuinfo is, the less likely it is to break. The CPU part number seems pretty generic, so it should be fairly safe to refer to it. Cheers ---Dave _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
