Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] x86/cpuidle: Cannon Lake adjustments

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 03/04/2020 09:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 02.04.2020 16:58, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 02/04/2020 09:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> As requested in reply to v1, this is now a pair of patches with
>>> the expectation that only patch 1 would be acked and go in.
>>>
>>> 1: drop Cannon Lake support
>>> 2: support Cannon Lake (again)
>> Dropping Cannon Lake support is only of any incremental benefit if we
>> drop it from everywhere, and I didn't mean to block this single patch on it.
> How would dropping it from everywhere in one go be any better?
> I would see a benefit then only if we added code to refuse
> booting there.
>
>> Consider either A-by.
> I'm sorry to ask, but "either" here is unclear to me: Do you
> mean both of the above, or "the first one here or the original
> v1 one"? I don't see a point committing this in two pieces, if
> the combination of both is fine by you as well.

Pick whichever patch you prefer.

Looking at Linux recently, it appears that Ice Lake inherited some of
the Cannon Lake uarch designs, so while we don't necessarily care about
Cannon Lake CPUs themselves, the same details might be applicable in
later CPUs as well.

~Andrew