Re: print_INTEL_info/print_INTEL_TLB

On Monday, August 01, 2011 1:44:18 pm Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> On Monday 01 August 2011 12:17 pm, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Monday, August 01, 2011 10:28:21 am Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > > on 01/08/2011 15:47 John Baldwin said the following:
> > > > On Sunday, July 31, 2011 11:22:18 am Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > > >> Just an observation:
> > > >> - print_INTEL_info and print_INTEL_TLB are missing from amd64
> > > >> identcpu.c - print_INTEL_TLB doesn't cover all the codes
> > > >> defined by Intel specs - not sure; perhaps print_INTEL_info
> > > >> should use deterministic cache
> > > >
> > > > parameters
> > > >
> > > >> as provided by CPUID 0x4 for a more complete coverage...
> > > >
> > > > It might be nice to create a sys/x86/x86/identcpu.c to merge
> > > > the two which would help with some of this.
> > >
> > > I agree with this suggestion regardless of the issue at hand.
> > >
> > > > print_INTEL_TLB() hasn't been updated since it
> > > > was added AFAIK which probably explains why it doesn't know
> > > > about all of the codes.
> > >
> > > Given the current state of this code - is it useful at all?
> > > Should we keep it in kernel provided that there are tools like
> > > cpuid, x86info, etc...? I would have no doubts if we gathered
> > > that information for some real use by kernel and then also
> > > printed it for user's convenience.  But if the code is there just
> > > for printing (and under bootverbose), then I am not really sure.
> >
> > Yeah, I would be fine with just tossing it.
> 
> Tossing print_INTEL_info() entirely or just print_INTEL_TLB()?
> 
> If we are going to remove print_INTEL_info(), then I think we should 
> do the same for print_AMD_info() (except for the last warning message 
> in the function) because it's going to have the fate sooner or later, 
> i.e., unmaintained and rot (if it isn't already).

Actually, yeah, I would toss all but the warning at the end of
print_AMD_info().

-- 
John Baldwin