On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 19:28:07 +0100 Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 10:16:10AM -0800, Jacob Pan wrote: > > CPU model detection is the first level checking. > > And in the case of RAPL, the only checking you can do. This is why it > should've had a CPUID bit. > I am 200% with you, all I can say is we are working on it. Look at the pain in the driver for dealing with various quirks. > > The error is about no valid domains (e.g. counters not working). So > > the error on minnowboard board could be a real problem if you expect > > to use RAPL. > > Right, and if you need to disable it there, you would need to add a > quirk table looking at DMI strings or so. A CPUID bit might've been a > bit better if BIOS update would clear it on those boards. Then, sw > won't even try to load there. who is gonna collect all the DMI strings? I don't think this is scalable. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
