On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 14:18, Dave Jones wrote:
> Any reason to restrict it to a single stepping ?
> This means you have to upgrade memtest every time a new model
> is released, which seems a bit of a pain.
This is the patch I use, which seems to make sense, since I don't know
of any other steppings. No point in parameterising the code until you
have some parameters.
<b
===== init.c 1.2 vs edited =====
--- 1.2/init.c Mon Jun 9 14:25:40 2003
+++ edited/init.c Mon Jun 9 14:27:42 2003
@@ -403,16 +403,12 @@
l1_cache = cpu_id.cache_info[3];
l1_cache += cpu_id.cache_info[7];
case 15:
- switch (cpu_id.model) {
- case 5:
- cprint(LINE_CPU, 0, "AMD Opteron");
- off = 11;
- l1_cache = cpu_id.cache_info[3];
- l1_cache += cpu_id.cache_info[7];
- l2_cache = (cpu_id.cache_info[11] << 8);
- l2_cache += cpu_id.cache_info[10];
- break;
- }
+ cprint(LINE_CPU, 0, "AMD Opteron");
+ off = 11;
+ l1_cache = cpu_id.cache_info[3];
+ l1_cache += cpu_id.cache_info[7];
+ l2_cache = (cpu_id.cache_info[11] << 8);
+ l2_cache += cpu_id.cache_info[10];
}
break;
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 22:00:21 EST