[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 05/11] [PATCH 05/11] x86: Moved microcode.c to microcode_intel.c.
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> 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).

I agree. A wrapper "microcode.ko" module would be nice, in order
to allow independent kernel and user space upgrades.

The module name is important also on udev method: only a module
load triggers the microcode request in udev, thus also the
new method should have stable kernel module name.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-19 15:01    [W:0.070 / U:41.340 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site