> > > I understood that, but I guess I was looking in the wrong places. > > > > I still think we should source all of the models for the intel CPUs. > > > > > Hah, sorry I forgot about that hunk.... 5231
Thanks. > >>>> > >>> Well then we are going to need a different solution...... > >>> > >> I think the code as it is works just fine. Ok, the warnings should be > >> silenced, but that's about it. > >> > > The easiest way is to have SSE and SSE2 default to n. Then there will > be no > > warnings, and people can enable them when they need them. > > > > I think you mentioned that a warning is generally good if people don't > set this explicitly... :) > So maybe we should just fix what we know for sure > (most likely those with no SSE and SSE2) and wait for people to fix this > while they come along these CPUs/sockets... If nobody does, the warning > is maybe not critical for them ;) Sure. That does seem like the best way. > > It's confusing to have SSE and SSE2 settings in some of the models, but > not > > others. > Yes. Since one socket can choose multiple cpus, it must go in the socket > to be safe (otherwise a SSE enabled CPU might break a socket with a > non-SSE enabled CPU), but there are also CPU models that don't come in > sockets... "Fake" sockets? > Better solution? Set it in the CPU for those, > with a comment? That's my vote. Thanks, Myles -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
