From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756604Ab0HIUP1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:15:27 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:39052 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753764Ab0HIUP0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:15:26 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,345,1278313200"; d="scan'208";a="594423103" Message-ID: <4C6061DE.4030300@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:15:26 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Organization: Intel Open Source Technology Center User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100720 Fedora/3.1.1-1.fc13 Thunderbird/3.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bifferos CC: mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, florian@openwrt.org, mark@bifferos.com, tglx@linutronix.de, Ingo Molnar , linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tip:x86/cpu] x86, cpu: RDC doesn't have CPUID, which is what c_ident is References: <66994.33108.qm@web27001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <66994.33108.qm@web27001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/09/2010 02:33 AM, bifferos wrote: > > The quick fix for this is: > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c > index 490dac6..06a2dac 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c > @@ -497,6 +497,9 @@ static void __cpuinit get_cpu_vendor(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) > if (!cpu_devs[i]) > break; > > + if (!cpu_devs[i]->c_ident[0]) > + continue; > + > if (!strcmp(v, cpu_devs[i]->c_ident[0]) || > (cpu_devs[i]->c_ident[1] && > !strcmp(v, cpu_devs[i]->c_ident[1]))) { > > > however, Peter's requirement to remove c_ident renders my patch > somewhat less useful back on RDC. /proc/cpuinfo then lists the > vendor as 'RDC' (an improvement over not applying the patch) and > the model name as '486' (also an improvement), but for some > reason the variants in my case statement then no longer make it > through to /proc/info. I don't think this is a big deal, and I > still think the patch is worth applying with this change. > Well, as I said, the generic code probably needs to change somewhat to print that stuff. -hpa