Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 6 Feb 2023 18:55:21 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86/perf/zhaoxin: Add stepping check for ZX-C | From | silviazhaooc <> |
| |
Hi Boris,
Thanks for your reply.
As I mentioned before, Nano has several series. We cannot test if all of them have the bug. Besides, AFAIK Nano's hardware support for PMC has not externally announced. So setting a new X86_BUG_ flag to Nano is inappropriate.
I still think exclude PMC support in driver is more appropriate.
Looking forward to your comments.
On 2023/2/6 17:48, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 04:26:25PM +0800, silviazhaooc wrote: >> Due to our company’s email policy, email address with oc suffix is used for >> sending email without confidentiality statement at the end of the mail body. >> >> I will remove –oc from my name later. > > Yes, please. The email address is fine but the name doesn't have to have > that funky "-oc" thing. > >> But due to some unknown historical reasons, the FMS of Nano and ZXC are only >> different in stepping. >> >> I have considered about using the “Model name string” to distinguish them, >> but it doesn't seem to be a common way in Linux kernel. > > I don't mind you using steppings to differentiate the two as long as > this is not going to change all of a sudden and that differentiation is > unambiguous. > > If not, you will have to use name strings as you don't have any other > choice. > > Whatever you do, pls define a new X86_BUG_ flag, set it only on Nano and > then test it in the PMU init code. > > Thx. >
| |