Re: New port status: AMD Hammer.

[William C. <wc...@nc...>]

Dave Jones wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 02:37:35PM -0400, William Cohen wrote:
>  > For op_cpu get_cpu_type(void) could be improved. A hard coding of "-1" 
>  > shouldn't be used. If the value is invalid it should be CPU_NO_GOOD. 
>  > Also it seems odd that for non X86_VENDOR_AMD everything is CPU_RTC, 
>  > while for X86_VENDOR_AMD everything but hammer returns equivalent to 
>  > CPU_NO_GOOD. Shouldn't it return CPU_RTC for X86_VENDOR_AMD that are
>  > non-hammer?
> 
> Hmm, point.
>  
>  > For op_events.c why repeat the entries that Athlon for the hammer? If 
>  > the events are identical, why not creat a combined entry:
> 
> Example purposes only. The hammer events are different, I'm just not
> sure I can disclose them yet.


For example purposes having the event list is okay. But if that is the 
case why not just put in a single example event with a comment that it 
is an example event rather than having a bunch of code is going to be 
changed in the near future? I haven't seen what events codes the hammer 
supports. The publically available x86-64 manuals mention that the event 
codes are listed in the x86-64 bios manual. I don't have a copy of the 
BIOS manual.

-will