[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b647ffbd0809190537w18cc4d5fo4ce1a9c0390405d9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:37:48 +0200
From: "Dmitry Adamushko" <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
To: "Peter Oruba" <peter.oruba@....com>
Cc: "Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>, cate@...ian.org,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Tigran Aivazian" <tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 05/11] [PATCH 05/11] x86: Moved microcode.c to microcode_intel.c.
2008/9/19 Peter Oruba <peter.oruba@....com>:
> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists