Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:55:29 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86 microcode: work_on_cpu and cleanup of the synchronization logic | From | Dmitry Adamushko <> |
| |
2009/4/23 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>: > > * Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Version 3 >> >> diff with v.2 >> >> - use smp_call_function_single() instead of work_on_cpu() as suggested by Ingo; >> - add 'enum ucode_state' as return value of request_microcode_{fw,user} >> - minor cleanups > > This version looks really nice structurally. What type of testing > have you done on the patch, on what CPU type?
Quite limited testing. It looks like there is no newer ucode availble for my dual-core Intel Core2 Duo (Thinkpad R60) so what I did is as follows:
- change update_match_revision() in microcode_intel.c in a way that allows loading of a ucode with a revision == the current revision (rev. 0x57 in my case). From the POV of the microcode module it nevertheless looks like an update;
- update via /dev/microcode (CONFIG_MICROCODE_OLD_INTERFACE) with a .dat file;
- suspend -> resume (reload of ucode via cpu-callbacks)
These tests worked for me.
Obviously, it'd be nice if more people could give it a try (e.g. update with a firmware image and also on AMD - although the changes in microcode_amd.c are quite straightforward).
p.s. argh... just noticed that the following line is redundant in microcode_core.c (forgot to remove it)
+enum { UCODE_UPDATE_ERR, UCODE_UPDATE_OK, UCODE_UPDATE_NAVAIL };
> > Thanks, > > Ingo >
-- Best regards, Dmitry Adamushko
| |