From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 17:41:02 +0100 Subject: [PATCHv4 5/5] arm64: cpuinfo: print info for all CPUs In-Reply-To: References: <20140717123533.GJ21153@arm.com> <20140717171058.GM18203@arm.com> <20140717172858.GD4844@arm.com> <20140718092744.GA19850@arm.com> <20140718095311.GA1818@arm.com> <20140718135738.GA17328@leverpostej> <20140718155852.GB16376@leverpostej> Message-ID: <20140718164102.GA17374@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 05:18:27PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 18 July 2014 16:58, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 04:52:37PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> Comments in the kernel sources aren't going to guide > >> anybody except kernel developers. > > > > That's not entirely true, some people skim the kernel sources to figure > > out how they're meant to use syscalls and such (though admitedly this > > isn't all that common). > > Every time anybody has to do that it means you've failed to document > something... ...and in this case, the thing to document is the hwcaps. > >> I was expecting from this commit message that you were going to emit > >> actual comments in /proc/cpuinfo... > > > > I don't think that's a good idea, and I can only see that reading when I > > squint quite hard. ;) > > You have to admit it would put the documentation right where > the people looking at cpuinfo can find it :-) Sure :) > How about a patch to Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt ? Currently there seems to be a single relevant line, and it doesn't seem to be up-to-date for SMP: cpuinfo Info about the CPU It might make sense to have something under Documentation/arm64, but I don't know what precisely. Cheers, Mark.