On 2/4/2019 10:44 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 04:38:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
+static const struct x86_cpu_desc isolation_ucodes[] = {
+ INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 9, 0x0000004e),
+ INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 10, 0x0000004e),
+ INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 11, 0x0000004e),
+ INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 12, 0x0000004e),
+ INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 10, 0x0000004e),
+ INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 11, 0x0000004e),
+ INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 12, 0x0000004e),
+ INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 13, 0x0000004e),
Do we want a special stepping (0 / -1) to be able to denote 'all' ?
Something like as below?
#define X86_STEPPING_ANY 0xff
As my understanding, the microcode version for each stepping is
independent and irrelevant. The 0x0000004e should be just coincidence.
If so, I don't think X86_STEPPING_ANY is very useful.
Andi, if I'm wrong please correct me.
Thanks,
Kan
