From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751365Ab2KOXf3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:35:29 -0500 Received: from co1ehsobe005.messaging.microsoft.com ([216.32.180.188]:41430 "EHLO co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751130Ab2KOXf1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:35:27 -0500 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:163.181.249.108;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:NLI;H:ausb3twp01.amd.com;RD:none;EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -5 X-BigFish: VPS-5(zzbb2dI98dI9371I936eI1432Izz1de0h1202h1d1ah1d2ahzz8275bhz2dh668h839hd25he5bhf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1155h) X-WSS-ID: 0MDJYUV-01-A89-02 X-M-MSG: Message-ID: <50A57C35.10906@amd.com> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:35:17 -0500 From: Boris Ostrovsky User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121025 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gene Heskett CC: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, microcode, AMD: Add support for family 16h processors References: <1353004910-2204-1-git-send-email-boris.ostrovsky@amd.com> <20121115204503.GB18032@khazad-dum.debian.net> <201211151801.23160.gheskett@wdtv.com> In-Reply-To: <201211151801.23160.gheskett@wdtv.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1256"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginatorOrg: amd.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/15/2012 06:01 PM, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Thursday 15 November 2012, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>> Add valid patch size for family 16h processors >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky >> >> Is this something that needs to go to -stable ? > > IMO, and if I had an oar in this water, yes. Its been missing since the > Intel folks started playing with it a couple years back up the log. I > have the amd_ucode files in my /lib/firmware tree, > > root@coyote:/opt/os9# ls -l /lib/firmware/amd-ucode/ > total 76 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 642 2012-01-17 11:50 INSTALL > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 9987 2012-01-17 11:50 LICENSE > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 12404 2012-01-17 11:50 microcode_amd.bin > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1526 2012-01-17 11:50 microcode_amd.bin.README > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2644 2012-01-17 11:50 microcode_amd_fam15h.bin > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 510 2012-01-17 11:50 > microcode_amd_fam15h.bin.README > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2012 2009-01-20 04:48 microcode_amd.phenom-V83 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 15020 2012-01-17 11:50 microcode_amd_solaris.bin > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1685 2012-01-17 11:50 > microcode_amd_solaris.bin.README > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6227 2012-01-17 11:50 README > > but I can't recall the last time I saw the code sign in during dmesg. > Old, slow 4 core phenom here. AMD was forgotten about when the loading > of it was moved from the kernel options to /etc/init.d/microcode. For > an AMD user, that was not a show stopper, but it wasn't a Good Thing(TM) > either. One possibility is that BIOS already incorporated all patches (which typically is the case) and so the driver doesn't have to do anything. -boris > >> >>> #define F1XH_MPB_MAX_SIZE 2048 >>> #define F14H_MPB_MAX_SIZE 1824 >>> #define F15H_MPB_MAX_SIZE 4096 >>> >>> +#define F16H_MPB_MAX_SIZE 3458 >>> >>> switch (c->x86) { >>> >>> case 0x14: >>> @@ -198,6 +199,9 @@ static unsigned int verify_patch_size(int cpu, u32 >>> patch_size, >>> >>> case 0x15: >>> max_size = F15H_MPB_MAX_SIZE; >>> break; >>> >>> + case 0x16: >>> + max_size = F16H_MPB_MAX_SIZE; >>> + break; >>> >>> default: >>> max_size = F1XH_MPB_MAX_SIZE; >>> break; >> >> Because it looks like without this patch, some valid microcode updates >> would be rejected by the kernel... > > > Cheers, Gene >