Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86: Remove x86 prefixed names from acpi code

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 04.03.2026 20:53, Kevin Lampis wrote:
> struct cpuinfo_x86
>   .x86        => .family
>   .x86_vendor => .vendor
>   .x86_model  => .model
>   .x86_mask   => .stepping
> 
> No functional change.
> 
> This work is part of making Xen safe for Intel family 18/19.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Lampis <kevin.lampis@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Inside do_get_hw_residencies()
> there is an explicit check for `c->family != 6`
> Do we need to add family 18/19 support here?

I think there is more stuff to add there, as the last addition looks to have
been quite a while back. But "yes" to the question. However, ...

> --- a/xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpu_idle.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpu_idle.c
> @@ -178,10 +178,11 @@ static void cf_check do_get_hw_residencies(void *arg)
>      struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &current_cpu_data;
>      struct hw_residencies *hw_res = arg;
>  
> -    if ( c->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL || c->x86 != 6 )
> +    /* XXX Does this need to be extented to include fam 18/19? */
> +    if ( c->vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL || c->family != 6 )
>          return;

... I'd prefer if such a comment could be avoided, ideally by covering the
case (in a separate change).

> @@ -1059,8 +1060,7 @@ static void acpi_processor_power_init_bm_check(struct 
> acpi_processor_flags *flag
>       * is not required while entering C3 type state on
>       * P4, Core and beyond CPUs
>       */
> -    if ( c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL &&
> -        (c->x86 > 0x6 || (c->x86 == 6 && c->x86_model >= 14)) )
> +    if ( c->vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL && c->vfm >= INTEL_CORE_YONAH )
>              flags->bm_control = 0;
>  }

Again a check that likely can simply be dropped (in a separate change, possibly
together with those other droppings suggested in reply to patch 1)?

With the adjustments:
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

Jan