From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753773AbYISMh4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:37:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752054AbYISMht (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:37:49 -0400 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.172]:33564 "EHLO wf-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751488AbYISMht (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:37:49 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=E7i51CUcH6PEFoUCfQio7sVNbzAOVStpb9MuQHa/H54n12sanxxTGpPhN0yAq7Qv2Q Z/CfGnPHZvoAyCohGWSwS3r4BKzUWWqi8oxD2N7YoA4RnWKob3k33f1Nhx2dIVNYwiDZ 06/aO5iUfQTL6YESWeSB2ALNRlIjuZmSn1IJ0= Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:37:48 +0200 From: "Dmitry Adamushko" To: "Peter Oruba" Subject: Re: [patch 05/11] [PATCH 05/11] x86: Moved microcode.c to microcode_intel.c. Cc: "Arjan van de Ven" , cate@debian.org, "Ingo Molnar" , "Thomas Gleixner" , "Tigran Aivazian" , LKML In-Reply-To: <48D3942B.1050901@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080728164411.490752571@amd.com> <20080728164448.492961653@amd.com> <20080907120823.59f8fa47@infradead.org> <48CA586C.2010104@amd.com> <20080912063517.783b7f85@infradead.org> <48D3942B.1050901@amd.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2008/9/19 Peter Oruba : > Some additonal words regarding the current user space issues: > > IMHO the most convenient way to update microcode is through the firmware loading > interface instead of microcode_ctl. This reduces user-space responsibilities to > loading the correct module at boot time and to place the microcode patch file at > the right location via package installation. The problems mentioned in this > thread would then probably disappear as well. What do you guys think? It'd still require changes for all the setups that currently rely on the 'microcode_ctl' interface. Moreover, Arjan's setup failed not due to the 'microcode_ctl' per se but due to the altered kernel module name. After all, we can't break the established interface this way. We can either reserve 'microcode' as a legacy name for intel cpus (== microcode_intel), or maybe we can use request_module() from microcode.ko to load a proper arch-specific module (I guess, it's not ok for !KMOD-enabled kernels). > > Thanks, > Peter > -- Best regards, Dmitry Adamushko