From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com (Andy Shevchenko)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:56:37 +0300
Subject: [PATCH v3 09/10] drivers/hwmon: Add PECI hwmon client drivers
In-Reply-To: <20180410183212.16787-10-jae.hyun.yoo@linux.intel.com>
References: <20180410183212.16787-1-jae.hyun.yoo@linux.intel.com>
 <20180410183212.16787-10-jae.hyun.yoo@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <1524585397.21176.502.camel@linux.intel.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, 2018-04-10 at 11:32 -0700, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:

>  drivers/hwmon/peci-cputemp.c  | 783
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/hwmon/peci-dimmtemp.c | 432 +++++++++++++++++++++++

Does it make sense one driver per patch?

> +#define CLIENT_CPU_ID_MASK    0xf0ff0  /* Mask for Family / Model
> info */

> +struct cpu_gen_info {
> +	u32 type;
> +	u32 cpu_id;
> +	u32 core_max;
> +};
> 

> +static const struct cpu_gen_info cpu_gen_info_table[] = {
> +	{ .type = CPU_GEN_HSX,
> +	  .cpu_id = 0x306f0, /* Family code: 6, Model number: 63
> (0x3f) */
> +	  .core_max = CORE_MAX_ON_HSX },
> +	{ .type = CPU_GEN_BRX,
> +	  .cpu_id = 0x406f0, /* Family code: 6, Model number: 79
> (0x4f) */
> +	  .core_max = CORE_MAX_ON_BDX },
> +	{ .type = CPU_GEN_SKX,
> +	  .cpu_id = 0x50650, /* Family code: 6, Model number: 85
> (0x55) */
> +	  .core_max = CORE_MAX_ON_SKX },
> +};

Are we talking about x86 CPU IDs here?
If so, why x86 corresponding headers, including intel-family.h are not
used?

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy