Re: [coreboot] [PATCH] New Socket370 and Model 68x for CAR

[Joseph Smith]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:23:36 -0600, "Myles Watson" 
wrote:
> > > Yes, it tries without the mask, i.e for 681 - 68f it tries 680. Then,
>
> if
> > > that does not match, it dies with "Unknown CPU".
> > > There is no failsafe nor fallback involved. What makes you think there
> > > is? It just means adding 1 entry to the table instead of 16.
> >
> > Ok, if it is not a _fail_safe_ or _fall_back_ why don't we just always

do
> > this as a default?
>
> My understanding is that barring errata, the stepping shouldn't matter.
> Just in case it does, we check it.  If there isn't a specific entry for

the
> stepping, we go to the "normal" case of using the ops without the

stepping
> information.

Correct, I get that.
> > Why print out a "generic" message?
>
> I think it just means "not-stepping-specific"

I like your verbage alot better than "generic".
Or even "default" would be better than "generic".

[PATCH] New Socket370 and Model 68x for CAR

[Stefan Reinauer]

On 6/21/10 7:24 PM, Joseph Smith wrote:
> > > Why print out a "generic" message?
> >
> > I think it just means "not-stepping-specific"
>
> I like your verbage alot better than "generic".
> Or even "default" would be better than "generic".

So, any native speakers with a good suggestion how the text should read
out there?

"Using not-stepping-specific cpu ops" sounds odd.

"Using default cpu ops" is about as wrong as "Using generic cpu ops"
because they're neither generic nor default.

Maybe this?

printk(BIOS_DEBUG, "CPU: Using CPU ops for family %02x, model %02x
(ignoring stepping %02x)\n",
                c.x86, c.x86_model, c.x86_mask);

Or we just remove the message all together.

I'll gladly ack a patch.

[PATCH] New Socket370 and Model 68x for CAR

[Joseph Smith]

On 06/21/2010 03:10 PM, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> On 6/21/10 7:24 PM, Joseph Smith wrote:
> > > > Why print out a "generic" message?
> > >
> > > I think it just means "not-stepping-specific"
> >
> > I like your verbage alot better than "generic".
> > Or even "default" would be better than "generic".
>
> So, any native speakers with a good suggestion how the text should read
> out there?
>
> "Using not-stepping-specific cpu ops" sounds odd.
>
> "Using default cpu ops" is about as wrong as "Using generic cpu ops"
> because they're neither generic nor default.
>
> Maybe this?
>
> printk(BIOS_DEBUG, "CPU: Using CPU ops for family %02x, model %02x
> (ignoring stepping %02x)\n",
>                  c.x86, c.x86_model, c.x86_mask);
>
> Or we just remove the message all together.
>
> I'll gladly ack a patch.

I say we remove it all togethor. Especially with a socket like the 370 
where it has so many compatible cpu's and I am going to use 6*0 on all 
the different models.