On 1/7/26 11:55 AM, Zhao Liu wrote: > > >>>> As background, current Zhaoxin CPUs implement several >>>> CPUID.(EAX=0xC0000001, >>>> ECX=0):EDX feature bits that are not yet defined in the Linux kernel, for >>>> example SM2/SM2_EN, SM3/SM4 and their enable bits, PARALLAX/PARALLAX_EN, >>>> TM3/TM3_EN, RNG2/RNG2_EN, PHE2/PHE2_EN, and RSA/RSA_EN. >>>> >>>> We previously tried to upstream all these extra feature bits in one >>>> patch(https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/), >>>> but the maintainer rejected it because there was no in-tree code using >>>> these >>>> features yet. So our current plan is to add the CPUID bits together with >>>> real >>>> kernel users step by step. >>> >>> I see. I think it's enough to document missing CPUIDs in comment. >>> >> >> Would the following comment be acceptable? >> >> /* >> * missing: SM2/SM2_EN, CCS/CCS_EN, PARALLAX/PARALLAX_EN, >> * TM3/TM3_EN, RNG2/RNG2_EN, PHE2/PHE2_EN, RSA/RSA_EN >> */ > > Yes, look good to me. > >> Do you think I should also include the lore link in the commit message/cover >> letter for additional context? > > Yes, mentioning the link in commit message is good. More information is > helpful. > >>> Could we make Shijidadao-Client as a v2 of Shijidadao-Server, and create an >>> alias for this v2? >>> >>> .alias = "Shijidadao-Client" >>> >>> Then we could rename Shijidadao-Server to Shijidadao, and its v2 is for >>> client. >>> >>>> This is also aligned with how QEMU models other vendors' >>>> micro-architectures >>>> where client and server products have slightly different feature sets. >>> >>> The main use case for CPU models is to easy migration across mixed CPU >>> clusters [*]. So, IMO, not all products require a model. >> >> For the CPU model naming/versioning, my plan is: >> The current Shijidadao will be equivalent to the old Shijidadao-Client-v2, >> drop >> the old Shijidadao-Client-v1 according to your advice, Shijidadao-v1 will >> have >> the alias Shijidadao-Client, and Shijidadao-v2 will have the alias >> Shijidadao-Server. > > Migration should have more use cases for the server. Personally, I feel > using the server version as the base model might be more convenient? > Anyway, it's up to you. Overall, these are fine for me.
I hadn't considered that server-side migration is a more common use case, thanks a lot. See you in v3. Best wishes, Ewan.
