Rahul, On Thu, 15 Aug 2019, Rahul Tanwar wrote:
Please use the proper prefix for your patches. x86 uses x86/subsystem: not x86: subsystem: > 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'. > Signed-off-by: Rahul Tanwar <[email protected]> > Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> > --- > 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. Thanks, tglx
