Hi Boris and Sean,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:04:44AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 03:42:23PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > Also I'm wondering for some basic leaf and extended leaf which
> > > may has different definition for different vendors, do we need
> > > to seprate the csv to a general one and vendor specific ones.
> >
> > Do you know of such?
No. When I read the patch, I googled some doc for the registers definition
which I found different from Intel's manual.
> >
> > Because AFAIK vendors own, more or less, each range. Like, Intel owns
> > the base range and AMD the extended so there should be no conflicts
> > actually...
>
> There are no known conflicts, and all sorts of things would break horribly if
> any CPU vendor (or hypervsior) were careless enough to redefine a CPUID bit.
Great to know these sharing policy between vendors, which will save many
troubles for us :)
Also I just took a look at code of cpuid, which has some functions like
print_leafX_vendorA
print_leafX_vendorB
print_leafX_vendorC
but as you mentioned, I didn't find obvious overlaps of specific bits.
Thanks,
Feng
