From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754905Ab0CYU7z (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:59:55 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:57231 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753528Ab0CYU7x (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:59:53 -0400 From: Thomas Renninger To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] cpufreq: Add APERF/MPERF support for AMD processors Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:59:31 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: Borislav Petkov , akpm@linux-foundation.org, davej@redhat.com, linux@dominikbrodowski.net, mingo@elte.hu, hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1269452783-966-1-git-send-email-bp@amd64.org> <201003251043.04867.trenn@suse.de> <13218.1269546919@localhost> In-Reply-To: <13218.1269546919@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201003252159.31883.trenn@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 25 March 2010 08:55:19 pm Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:43:04 BST, Thomas Renninger said: > > > + if (c->cpuid_level >= 6) { > > > > and remove this (arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c): > > if (c->cpuid_level > 6) { > > So is > or >= the correct comparator here? This one: >= is correct (for both). I double checked, there is one Intel CPU type having a cpuid_level of 6, but this would not support aperf/mperf, thus above is still fine. The remaining question is what Borislav said: are there other x86 CPU vendors who could use this differently. I very much expect there are not. IMO you should resubmit this one or the whole series with this change and Dave should just push this in his tree and queue it up, there was enough time to object. Thanks, Thomas