Hi Thomas,
Thanks for your comments.
On 15/8/2019 6:31 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Rahul,
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019, Rahul Tanwar wrote:
Please use the proper prefix for your patches. x86 uses
x86/subsystem: not x86: subsystem:
Well noted.
This patch replaces direct values usage with constant definitions usage
when access CPU models.
Please do not use 'This patch'. We already know that this is a patch
otherwise you wouldn't have sent it with [PATCH] on the subject line,
right?
See Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst and search for 'This
patch'.
Well noted.
Signed-off-by: Rahul Tanwar <rahul.tan...@linux.intel.com>
Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@intel.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
index 8d6d92ebeb54..0419fba1ea56 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
@@ -265,9 +265,9 @@ static void early_init_intel(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
/* Penwell and Cloverview have the TSC which doesn't sleep on S3 */
if (c->x86 == 6) {
switch (c->x86_model) {
- case 0x27: /* Penwell */
- case 0x35: /* Cloverview */
- case 0x4a: /* Merrifield */
+ case INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_SALTWELL_MID: /* Penwell */
+ case INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_SALTWELL_TABLET: /* Cloverview */
+ case INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_SILVERMONT_MID: /* Merrifield */
Are these comments really still useful now that the defines are used? I
don't think so.
Agree that these comments can be removed here. These comments are useful to
associate the CPU model with the product name. But, i think, the right
place to have
these comments is intel-family.h. I will remove these comments from here
in V2.
Regards,
Rahul
