On 17.07.2025 11:02, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 17/07/2025 9:26 am, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 16.07.2025 19:31, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> With the ability to match on steppings, introduce a new X86_MATCH_VFMS() >>> helper to match a specific stepping, and use it to rework deadline_match[]. >> I'm fine with the patch in principle, but I wonder how you envision to >> support >> a match for multiple steppings in one go then. In particular >> macro-naming-wise. > > The Linux version uses > > X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPS(vfm, min_step, max_step, data)
Hmm, yes, something like that (naming-wise at least) may be possible to use. It'll be potentially a little confusing, but I guess we'll manage. Or maybe ... > and calls GENMASK(min_step, max_step) but for a single stepping that > causes rows which look like: > > X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPS(INTEL_HASWELL_X, 0x2, 0x2, 0x3a), /* EP */ > > > Even in Linux, there are very few examples which take a genuine range, > and nothing so far that we need in Xen, so I implemented a slightly > different helper. ... we get away without ever needing such. Jan
