Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:11:35 -0700
From:      "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org>
To:        John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Cc:        Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/amd64/amd64 identcpu.c src/sys/i386/i386 identcpu.c
Message-ID:  <20051018171135.GA94386@dragon.NUXI.org>
In-Reply-To: <200510181243.54588.jhb@freebsd.org>
References:  <435473D3.8080209@freebsd.org> <Pine.GSO.4.43.0510180047250.12093-100000@sea.ntplx.net> <20051018152200.GD84920@dragon.NUXI.org> <200510181243.54588.jhb@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 12:43:52PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 October 2005 11:22 am, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 12:50:30AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Colin Percival wrote:
> > > > David O'Brien wrote:
> > > > > CPU: Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 280 (2392.92-MHz K8-class
> > >          ^^^^
> > ...
> > > > This may be clear to *you*, but five years from now I'm sure that *I*
> > > > won't be able to remember what the AMD Opteron 280 is.
> > >
> > > Am I missing something?  Would it still say "Dual" if it were not a
> > > dual core?
> >
> > No it would not.  I'm not sure what this added:
> >     CPU: Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 280 (2394.81-MHz K8-class
> >     ..
> >       Cores per package: 2
> 
> Just because your employer formats brand info strings that way doesn't mean 
> other chip manufacturers will.  FreeBSD as a project does not just run on 
> your employer's products, so we can't really make assumptions about the 
> layout of description strings that are free-form and vary from vendor to 
> vendor.  By obtaining the actual values from registers and outputting them in 
> a vendor-neutral way, FreeBSD as a project can provide this info to our users 
> across architectures (i386 and amd64) and across vendors (AMD and Intel) in a 
> uniform way.  This is much more user friendly.

*sigh*  This has become useless.  Please put it under verboseboot or turn
it into something truly useful.  Right now it is simply a waste of dmesg
space.  As written it does not tell you the kernel's POV.  As written it
doesn't accurately document the physical HW.

-- 
-- David  (obrien@FreeBSD.org)



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051018171135.GA94386>