On 04.03.2026 20:53, Kevin Lampis wrote: > struct cpuinfo_x86 > .x86 => .family > .x86_vendor => .vendor > .x86_model => .model > .x86_mask => .stepping > > No functional change. > > This work is part of making Xen safe for Intel family 18/19. > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Lampis <[email protected]> > --- > Inside do_get_hw_residencies() > there is an explicit check for `c->family != 6` > Do we need to add family 18/19 support here?
I think there is more stuff to add there, as the last addition looks to have been quite a while back. But "yes" to the question. However, ... > --- a/xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpu_idle.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpu_idle.c > @@ -178,10 +178,11 @@ static void cf_check do_get_hw_residencies(void *arg) > struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = ¤t_cpu_data; > struct hw_residencies *hw_res = arg; > > - if ( c->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL || c->x86 != 6 ) > + /* XXX Does this need to be extented to include fam 18/19? */ > + if ( c->vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL || c->family != 6 ) > return; ... I'd prefer if such a comment could be avoided, ideally by covering the case (in a separate change). > @@ -1059,8 +1060,7 @@ static void acpi_processor_power_init_bm_check(struct > acpi_processor_flags *flag > * is not required while entering C3 type state on > * P4, Core and beyond CPUs > */ > - if ( c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL && > - (c->x86 > 0x6 || (c->x86 == 6 && c->x86_model >= 14)) ) > + if ( c->vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL && c->vfm >= INTEL_CORE_YONAH ) > flags->bm_control = 0; > } Again a check that likely can simply be dropped (in a separate change, possibly together with those other droppings suggested in reply to patch 1)? With the adjustments: Acked-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> Jan
