On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:16 AM Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2018, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > It's even worse with Silvermont. > > > > > > So no, the interesting information is the UARCH and the variant of that, > > > > With Uarch you mean the core uarch? That doesn't really work for > > something like Silvermont or Goldmont. > > > > > e.g. UARCH_CLIENT, UARCH_SERVER, UARCH_WHATEVER. All the magic Code Names > > > > Right your scheme totally doesn't work on Silvermont because there > > are multiple client variants. > > We have that for the big cores as well: > > #define INTEL_FAM6_HASWELL_CORE 0x3C > #define INTEL_FAM6_HASWELL_X 0x3F > #define INTEL_FAM6_HASWELL_ULT 0x45 > #define INTEL_FAM6_HASWELL_GT3E 0x46 > > Why would we treat ATOM differently? It's all the same scheme: > > SILVERMONT_CLIENT 0x37 Baytrail, Valleyview > SILVERMONT_SERVER 0x40 Avaton, Rangely
0x5D SoFIA is another Silvermont variant on the client side, and doesn't fit well in that scheme I'd say. Calling it SILVERMONT_SOFIA would probably be best here so people can figure out what it is. Arnd