Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:03:52 +0200 | From | Peter Oruba <> | Subject | Re: [patch 05/11] [PATCH 05/11] x86: Moved microcode.c to microcode_intel.c. |
| |
Giacomo A. Catenazzi schrieb: > Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> 2008/9/19 Peter Oruba <peter.oruba@amd.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). > > 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. > > ciao > cate >
That sounds like a single-module solution would be the best way to go. All dependencies would then be handled inside the module.
-Peter
| |