Re: Surely cpumodel isn't cumulative?

[Stephen Borrill <netbsd%precedence.co.uk@localhost>]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Stephen Borrill wrote:
> > From i386/coretemp.c:
>
>        cpumodel = CPUID2MODEL(ci->ci_signature);
>        /* extended model */
>        cpumodel += CPUID2EXTMODEL(ci->ci_signature);
>
> But EXTMODEL is extra detail within a given model, they can't be added 
> together.
>
> i.e. model 0xe with ext model 0x1 is not the same as 0xf.
>
> Any unforeseen issues with just removing the second cpumodel line (or 
> altering it to cpuextmodel)?

This patch works for me on Xeon X3430:

--- coretemp.c  25 Mar 2009 22:53:51 -0000      1.12
+++ coretemp.c  30 Nov 2009 15:28:40 -0000
@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@
        struct coretemp_softc *sc;
        uint32_t regs[4];
        uint64_t msr;
-       int cpumodel, cpumask;
+       int cpumodel, cpuextmodel, cpumask;

        /*
         * CPUID 0x06 returns 1 if the processor has on-die thermal
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@
            (int)device_unit(ci->ci_dev));
        cpumodel = CPUID2MODEL(ci->ci_signature);
        /* extended model */
-       cpumodel += CPUID2EXTMODEL(ci->ci_signature);
+       cpuextmodel = CPUID2EXTMODEL(ci->ci_signature);
        cpumask = ci->ci_signature & 15;

        /*
@@ -113,7 +113,8 @@
         * from the Linux coretemp driver.
         */
        sc->sc_tjmax = 100;
-       if ((cpumodel == 0xf && cpumask >= 2) || cpumodel == 0xe) {
+       if ((cpumodel == 0xf && cpumask >= 2) ||
+           (cpumodel == 0xe && cpuextmodel != 1)) {
                msr = rdmsr(MSR_IA32_EXT_CONFIG);
                if (msr & (1 << 30))
                        sc->sc_tjmax = 85;

--
Stephen