Re: [PATCH] x86/cpu: Rename Denverton and Gemini Lake

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:16 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > It's even worse with Silvermont.
> > >
> > > So no, the interesting information is the UARCH and the variant of that,
> >
> > With Uarch you mean the core uarch?  That doesn't really work for
> > something like Silvermont or Goldmont.
> >
> > > e.g. UARCH_CLIENT, UARCH_SERVER, UARCH_WHATEVER. All the magic Code Names
> >
> > Right your scheme totally doesn't work on Silvermont because there
> > are multiple client variants.
>
> We have that for the big cores as well:
>
> #define INTEL_FAM6_HASWELL_CORE         0x3C
> #define INTEL_FAM6_HASWELL_X            0x3F
> #define INTEL_FAM6_HASWELL_ULT          0x45
> #define INTEL_FAM6_HASWELL_GT3E         0x46
>
> Why would we treat ATOM differently? It's all the same scheme:
>
> SILVERMONT_CLIENT       0x37         Baytrail, Valleyview
> SILVERMONT_SERVER       0x40         Avaton, Rangely

0x5D SoFIA is another Silvermont variant on the client side, and doesn't
fit well in that scheme I'd say. Calling it SILVERMONT_SOFIA would
probably be best here so people can figure out what it is.

     Arnd