[coreboot] [PATCH] New Socket370 and Model 68x for CAR

[Joseph Smith]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:35:13 +0200, Stefan Reinauer <stepan at coresystems.de>
wrote:
> On 6/21/10 12:15 PM, Joseph Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:48:33 +0200, Peter Stuge <peter at stuge.se> wrote:
>>
>>> Joseph Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Before I did not get the "Using generic cpu ops (good)" is that ok?
>>>>>>
>>>>> The message seems to suggest so..
>>>>>
>>>> Hmm, to me it suggests it is using a _fail_safe_ because it can't
>>>> find the correct (0x068a) device. It works fine eithor way but I
>>>> don't think the _fail_safe_ is supposed to be the "normal" method.
>>>>
>>> It says "generic" and "good" - not even "default" nor anything else
>>> that might suggest a failure to me. :)
>>>
>>> As could be expected from the code, that message is printed after the
>>> CPU is known when disregarding stepping.
>>>
>>> $ grep -rn 'Using generic cpu ops' .|grep -v '/\.svn/'
>>> ./arch/i386/lib/cpu.c:253:              printk(BIOS_DEBUG, "Using
> generic
>>> cpu ops (good)\n");
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Ok, now lets look at the whole function:
>>
>>         /* Lookup the cpu's operations */
>>          set_cpu_ops(cpu);
>>
>>          if(!cpu->ops) {
>>                  /* mask out the stepping and try again */
>>                  cpu->device -= c.x86_mask;
>>                  set_cpu_ops(cpu);
>>                  cpu->device += c.x86_mask;
>>                  if(!cpu->ops) die("Unknown cpu");
>>                  printk(BIOS_DEBUG, "Using generic cpu ops (good)\n");
>>          }
>>
>> Hmm, to me this is a _fail_safe_ or _fall_back_.
>> cpu->ops fails because it is not able to find cpu->device so it runs
this
>> function to "try again"
> 
> Yes, it tries without the mask, i.e for 681 - 68f it tries 680. Then, if
> that does not match, it dies with "Unknown CPU".
> There is no failsafe nor fallback involved. What makes you think there
> is? It just means adding 1 entry to the table instead of 16.
> 
Ok, if it is not a _fail_safe_ or _fall_back_ why don't we just always do
this as a default? 
Why print out a "generic" message?

-- 
Thanks,
Joseph Smith
Set-Top-Linux
www.settoplinux.org