Hi Simon,
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
> On 10 March 2016 at 21:52, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>> These two identifiers can be useful for drivers which need to adjust their
>>> behaviour depending on the CPU family or stepping (revision).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> arch/x86/cpu/cpu.c | 10 ++++++++++
>>> arch/x86/include/asm/cpu.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>> 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/cpu/cpu.c b/arch/x86/cpu/cpu.c
>>> index 8800e09..e2aad19 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/cpu/cpu.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/cpu/cpu.c
>>> @@ -333,6 +333,16 @@ static inline void get_fms(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c,
>>> uint32_t tfms)
>>> c->x86_model += ((tfms >> 16) & 0xF) << 4;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +u32 cpu_get_family_model(void)
>>> +{
>>> + return gd->arch.x86_device & 0x0fff0ff0;
>>
>> The decrypted family and model are stored in gd->arch.x86 and
>> gd->arch.x86_model. Returning raw data would still need the caller to
>> parse it. Why not just return these directly?
>
> I want to compare them in one shot to BROADWELL_FAMILY_ULT, etc.
>
> What exactly are you suggesting?
>
I guess we can also break BROADWELL_FAMILY_ULT down to values and have
them compared to gd->arch.x86 and gd->arch.x86_model. But I suppose
you have your logic already working, so this is fine.
>>
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +u32 cpu_get_stepping(void)
>>> +{
>>> + return gd->arch.x86_device & 0xf;
>>
>> This is gd->arch.x86_mask.
>
> OK. That's a funny name for stepping.
Yep, we can rename this to stepping in the future.
[snip]
Regards,
Bin
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
