From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.skyhub.de (mail.skyhub.de [5.9.137.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA5202583 for ; Wed, 4 May 2022 16:29:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zn.tnic (p5de8eeb4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.232.238.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 8ACF11EC0505; Wed, 4 May 2022 18:28:52 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1651681732; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=Pwo4stPQS5Epzgq3/I8V0NR8mbENabR0dFZP2E8j8AY=; b=qaXmgIitUirGKOzWMmXfBfPhHrQwFKJhis4aXI7O3YhyJJUuFJE1nUzD28zKlHW1pJwJOW YpcFEuS2JbvzPT8pxSx9ae1KJnDWarb2/P8OmW0gKaUZsjGOlxLWjyKuy2mJx9NzCQGSWT Via2Eiq2+oYOj2UC1ZQa2/gcI9fqdKQ= Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 18:28:51 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: Thomas Gleixner , "hdegoede@redhat.com" , "markgross@kernel.org" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" , "x86@kernel.org" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "corbet@lwn.net" , "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , "andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com" , "Joseph, Jithu" , "Raj, Ashok" , "rostedt@goodmis.org" , "Williams, Dan J" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org" , "patches@lists.linux.dev" , "Shankar, Ravi V" Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/10] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Add stub driver for In-Field Scan Message-ID: References: <20220422200219.2843823-1-tony.luck@intel.com> <20220428153849.295779-1-tony.luck@intel.com> <20220428153849.295779-4-tony.luck@intel.com> <87zgjxk2kt.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 04:24:50PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote: > > We really don't need more match id tables with gazillions of CPU models. > > Sadly we do :-( So what was the reasoning about CPUID bits being so expensive so that we need to match models? Ditto for the splitlock situation - that thing is supported on a bunch of models but nope, not a CPUID bit in sight. What was the convincing argument that made hw folks give a CPUID bit to the PPIN thing? Perhaps we could use it there too. :) -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette