Merge tag 'v3.4-rc6' into drm-intel-next

Conflicts:
	drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c

Ok, this is a fun story of git totally messing things up. There
/shouldn't/ be any conflict in here, because the fixes in -rc6 do only
touch functions that have not been changed in -next.

The offending commits in drm-next are 14415745b2..1fa611065 which
simply move a few functions from intel_display.c to intel_pm.c. The
problem seems to be that git diff gets completely confused:

$ git diff 14415745b2..1fa611065

is a nice mess in intel_display.c, and the diff leaks into totally
unrelated functions, whereas

$git diff --minimal  14415745b2..1fa611065

is exactly what we want.

Unfortunately there seems to be no way to teach similar smarts to the
merge diff and conflict generation code, because with the minimal diff
there really shouldn't be any conflicts. For added hilarity, every
time something in that area changes the + and - lines in the diff move
around like crazy, again resulting in new conflicts. So I fear this
mess will stay with us for a little longer (and might result in
another backmerge down the road).

Signed-Off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

1 files changed, 24 insertions, 5 deletions

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
index 0a44b90602b..146bb6218ee 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
@@ -26,7 +26,8 @@
  *	contact AMD for precise details and a CPU swap.
  *
  *	See	http://www.multimania.com/poulot/k6bug.html
- *		http://www.amd.com/K6/k6docs/revgd.html
+ *	and	section 2.6.2 of "AMD-K6 Processor Revision Guide - Model 6"
+ *		(Publication # 21266  Issue Date: August 1998)
  *
  *	The following test is erm.. interesting. AMD neglected to up
  *	the chip setting when fixing the bug but they also tweaked some
@@ -94,7 +95,6 @@ static void __cpuinit init_amd_k6(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
 				"system stability may be impaired when more than 32 MB are used.\n");
 		else
 			printk(KERN_CONT "probably OK (after B9730xxxx).\n");
-		printk(KERN_INFO "Please see http://membres.lycos.fr/poulot/k6bug.html\n");
 	}
 
 	/* K6 with old style WHCR */
@@ -353,10 +353,11 @@ static void __cpuinit srat_detect_node(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
 		node = per_cpu(cpu_llc_id, cpu);
 
 	/*
-	 * If core numbers are inconsistent, it's likely a multi-fabric platform,
-	 * so invoke platform-specific handler
+	 * On multi-fabric platform (e.g. Numascale NumaChip) a
+	 * platform-specific handler needs to be called to fixup some
+	 * IDs of the CPU.
 	 */
-	if (c->phys_proc_id != node)
+	if (x86_cpuinit.fixup_cpu_id)
 		x86_cpuinit.fixup_cpu_id(c, node);
 
 	if (!node_online(node)) {
@@ -579,6 +580,24 @@ static void __cpuinit init_amd(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
 		}
 	}
 
+	/* re-enable TopologyExtensions if switched off by BIOS */
+	if ((c->x86 == 0x15) &&
+	    (c->x86_model >= 0x10) && (c->x86_model <= 0x1f) &&
+	    !cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_TOPOEXT)) {
+		u64 val;
+
+		if (!rdmsrl_amd_safe(0xc0011005, &val)) {
+			val |= 1ULL << 54;
+			wrmsrl_amd_safe(0xc0011005, val);
+			rdmsrl(0xc0011005, val);
+			if (val & (1ULL << 54)) {
+				set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_TOPOEXT);
+				printk(KERN_INFO FW_INFO "CPU: Re-enabling "
+				  "disabled Topology Extensions Support\n");
+			}
+		}
+	}
+
 	cpu_detect_cache_sizes(c);
 
 	/* Multi core CPU? */