Re: [patch 09/22] cpufreq: Convert to new X86 CPU match macros

[Thomas Gleixner]

Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 3:18 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> +       X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL_FEATURE(INTEL,  6,  9, X86_FEATURE_EST, NULL),
>> +       X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL_FEATURE(INTEL,  6, 13, X86_FEATURE_EST, NULL),
>> +       X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL_FEATURE(INTEL, 15,  3, X86_FEATURE_EST, NULL),
>> +       X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL_FEATURE(INTEL, 15,  4, X86_FEATURE_EST, NULL),
>
>> +       X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL(INTEL,  6, 0x8, 0),
>> +       X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL(INTEL,  6, 0xb, 0),
>> +       X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL(INTEL, 15, 0x2, 0),
>
>> +       X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL(INTEL,  6, 0x8, 0),
>> +       X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL(INTEL,  6, 0xb, 0),
>> +       X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL(INTEL, 15, 0x2, 0),
>
> Perhaps use names instead of 6 and 15?

Thought about that and did not come up with anyting useful. FAM6 vs. 6
is not really any better

> Also, NULL vs. 0?

Both works, but yes I used mostly NULL.

Thanks,

        tglx