On 2019-10-05 00:30, ASSI wrote:
> Brian Inglis writes:
>> For informal comparison, attached are Cygwin, WSL, and test release cpuinfo
>> output, with diffs against the test release output, and the Windows registry
>> CentralProcessor dump (be careful not to double click on Windows systems!)
> The
Hi Brian,
On 10/4/2019 6:44 AM, Brian Inglis wrote:
> fix cache size return code handling and make AMD/Intel code common;
> fix cpuid level count as number of non-zero leafs excluding sub-leafs;
> fix AMD physical cores count to be documented nc + 1;
> round cpu MHz to correct Windows and match Li
On 2019-10-05 15:06, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 10/4/2019 6:44 AM, Brian Inglis wrote:
>> fix cache size return code handling and make AMD/Intel code common;
>> fix cpuid level count as number of non-zero leafs excluding sub-leafs;
>> fix AMD physical cores count to be documented nc + 1;
>> round cpu MH
fix cache size return code handling and make AMD/Intel code common;
fix cpuid level count as number of non-zero leafs excluding sub-leafs;
fix AMD physical cores count to be documented nc + 1;
round cpu MHz to correct Windows and match Linux cpuinfo;
add microcode from Windows registry Update Revis
Brian Inglis writes:
>> It would be easier to review if you would split it up into smaller patches,
>> each
>> doing one thing, to the extent that this makes sense. For example, the
>> simplification achieved by using the ftcprint macro could be done in a
>> single
>> patch that's separate fr
