On Tue, Aug 19, 2025, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: > On 18.07.2025 10:19, Naveen N Rao wrote: > As you can see, currently AVIC works there even without force_avic=1 so why > now hide it behind that parameter if errata #1235 is supposedly not present > on Zen3? Yeah, I'm aligned with keeping the current semantics for force_avic (and by extension for avic), and I'm pretty sure Naveen is as well. > Also, this platform is apparently confident enough that the AVIC silicon is > working correctly there to expose it in CPUID - maybe because that's CPU > stepping 2 instead of the initial 0? My vote is still to only enable AVIC by default for Zen4+. The story for Zen3 and earlier is just too messy.
