[LinuxBIOS] [PATCH] Initial support for the ASUS A8NE-FM

Robert Millan rmh at aybabtu.com
Thu Aug 16 01:40:17 CEST 2007

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 11:13:20PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> * Robert Millan <rmh at aybabtu.com> [070815 15:00]:
> > I had to take this part of your patch to fix Opteron miss-detection.
> > 
> > Are you checking for the cpu itself?  If this is so, I think CPUID would
> > be much more reliable.  Would you like a patch for that?
> Is CPUID reliable? (I guess it is, but that might make a pretty complex
> function)
> Please do send a patch. I think cpuid would be a good way to go.

CPUID is reliable I think, but I'm not sure what we need to test exactly:

  - Test for Dual Opteron as well?

  - Comments in the source code suggest that socket 939 Athlon64 also should
  match this check.  This poses two problems:

    - Uwe's patch precisely disabled the check because it was breaking boot
    on his s939 athlon64 (and it also does in mine).  However, I suspect this
    could be related to the memory access problem Rudolf just sent a mail about.

    - Some s939/athlon64 models cannot be distinguished properly with
    cpuid_eax(1) since the return value is shared with athlon64 fx or sempron.
    Does this indicate we need to match those?  Or do we want to tell them
    appart in some other way?  (processor name string should work for that,
    although strcmp'ing that has a feeling of is-not-quite-right over it)

Robert Millan

<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)

More information about the coreboot mailing list