On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 13:30 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > 2.6.32-longterm review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us > know. > > ------------------ > > From: Hans Rosenfeld <[email protected]> > > commit 9d8888c2a214aece2494a49e699a097c2ba9498b upstream. > > Remove check_c1e_idle() and use the new AMD errata checking framework > instead.
Clean-up patches are generally not candidates for longterm updates.
However, I notice that the range of procesors considered to have erratum
400 was also changed:
[...]
> +const int amd_erratum_400[] =
> + AMD_OSVW_ERRATUM(1, AMD_MODEL_RANGE(0xf, 0x41, 0x2, 0xff, 0xf),
> + AMD_MODEL_RANGE(0x10, 0x2, 0x1, 0xff, 0xf));
[...]
> - /* Family 0x0f models < rev F do not have C1E */
> - if (c->x86 == 0x0F && c->x86_model >= 0x40)
> - return 1;
> -
> - if (c->x86 == 0x10) {
> - /*
> - * check OSVW bit for CPUs that are not affected
> - * by erratum #400
> - */
> - if (cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_OSVW)) {
[...]
> - }
> - return 1;
[...]
Family 0x0f model 0x40 and model 0x41 stepping 0 and 1 are excluded.
Family 0x10 model 0x00, 0x01 and model 0x02 stepping 0 are excluded.
Is that the real fix here?
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
