On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:35:13 +0200, Stefan Reinauer <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 6/21/10 12:15 PM, Joseph Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:48:33 +0200, Peter Stuge <[email protected]> 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
--
coreboot mailing list: [email protected]
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
