Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Oct 2014 17:08:01 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86, microcode, intel: add error logging to early update driver |
| |
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 02:37:50PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > Enhance the logging in the Intel early microcode update driver to > be able to report errors. > > Signed-off-by: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> > --- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel_early.c | 94 +++++++++++++++------------ > 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel_early.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel_early.c > index f73fc0a..8ad50d6 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel_early.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel_early.c > @@ -31,6 +31,12 @@ > #include <asm/tlbflush.h> > #include <asm/setup.h> > > +enum { > + INTEL_EARLYMCU_NONE = 0, /* did nothing */ > + INTEL_EARLYMCU_UPDATEOK, /* microcode updated */ > + INTEL_EARLYMCU_REJECTED, /* cpu rejected it */ > +}; > + > static unsigned long mc_saved_in_initrd[MAX_UCODE_COUNT]; > static struct mc_saved_data { > unsigned int mc_saved_count; > @@ -576,37 +582,50 @@ scan_microcode(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, > > /* > * Print ucode update info. > + * for status == INTEL_EARLYMCU_UPDATEOK, data should be the mcu date > + * for status == INTEL_EARLYMCU_REJECTED, data should be mcu revision > */ > -static void > -print_ucode_info(struct ucode_cpu_info *uci, unsigned int date) > +static void print_ucode_info(const unsigned int status, > + const struct ucode_cpu_info *uci, > + const unsigned int data) > { > int cpu = smp_processor_id(); > - > - pr_info("CPU%d: entire core updated early to revision 0x%x, date %04x-%02x-%02x\n", > - cpu, > - uci->cpu_sig.rev, > - date & 0xffff, > - date >> 24, > - (date >> 16) & 0xff); > + struct ucode_cpu_info ucil; > + > + switch (status) { > + case INTEL_EARLYMCU_NONE: > + break; > + case INTEL_EARLYMCU_UPDATEOK: > + if (!uci) { > + collect_cpu_info_early(&ucil); > + uci = &ucil; > + } > + pr_info("CPU%d: entire core updated early to revision 0x%x, date %04x-%02x-%02x\n", > + cpu, > + uci->cpu_sig.rev, > + data & 0xffff, > + data >> 24, > + (data >> 16) & 0xff); > + break; > + case INTEL_EARLYMCU_REJECTED: > + pr_err("CPU%d: update to revision 0x%x rejected by the processor\n", cpu, data); > + break; > + } > } > > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32 > > -static int delay_ucode_info; > -static int current_mc_date; > +static unsigned int delay_ucode_info; > +static unsigned int delay_ucode_info_data;
First of all, this really is date and not data and prefixing it with "delay" really doesn't make it cleaner.
Then, this whole scheme can be simplified a bit by dropping delay_ucode_info and using current_mc_date to test whether to print the message or not. After printing, you set it back to 0.
And then you can drop the _REJECTED case as it is not needed.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --
| |