On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 10:57:32AM -0500, Liang, Kan wrote: > > > On 2/4/2019 10:44 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 04:38:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > +static const struct x86_cpu_desc isolation_ucodes[] = { > > > + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 9, 0x0000004e), > > > + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 10, 0x0000004e), > > > + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 11, 0x0000004e), > > > + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 12, 0x0000004e), > > > > > + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 10, 0x0000004e), > > > + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 11, 0x0000004e), > > > + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 12, 0x0000004e), > > > + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 13, 0x0000004e), > > > > Do we want a special stepping (0 / -1) to be able to denote 'all' ? > > > > Something like as below? > #define X86_STEPPING_ANY 0xff > > As my understanding, the microcode version for each stepping is independent > and irrelevant.
Huh? Why are we looking at the stepping then? x86_match_cpu_with_stepping() <--- -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.