On 17/07/2025 10:33 am, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 17.07.2025 11:02, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 17/07/2025 9:26 am, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 16.07.2025 19:31, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>> With the ability to match on steppings, introduce a new X86_MATCH_VFMS() >>>> helper to match a specific stepping, and use it to rework deadline_match[]. >>> I'm fine with the patch in principle, but I wonder how you envision to >>> support >>> a match for multiple steppings in one go then. In particular >>> macro-naming-wise. >> The Linux version uses >> >> X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPS(vfm, min_step, max_step, data) > Hmm, yes, something like that (naming-wise at least) may be possible to use. > It'll be potentially a little confusing, but I guess we'll manage. Or maybe > ... > >> and calls GENMASK(min_step, max_step) but for a single stepping that >> causes rows which look like: >> >> X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPS(INTEL_HASWELL_X, 0x2, 0x2, 0x3a), /* EP */ >> >> >> Even in Linux, there are very few examples which take a genuine range, >> and nothing so far that we need in Xen, so I implemented a slightly >> different helper. > ... we get away without ever needing such.
We will want it in order to convert spec_ctrl.c ~Andrew
