From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753909Ab2LKTda (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:33:30 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:50007 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753185Ab2LKTd3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:33:29 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,260,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="232395861" Message-ID: <50C78A79.6010306@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:33:13 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yinghai Lu CC: "H. Peter Anvin" , Borislav Petkov , "Yu, Fenghua" , "mingo@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [tip:x86/microcode] x86/microcode_intel_early.c: Early update ucode on Intel's CPU References: <3E5A0FA7E9CA944F9D5414FEC6C71220470F154E@ORSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com> <50C6AB63.9070008@zytor.com> <50C6D3DF.3030209@zytor.com> <20121211145716.GB8873@liondog.tnic> <50C763C2.5020603@zytor.com> <20121211170605.GD28827@liondog.tnic> <50C7752C.2000709@zytor.com> <50C7795D.3000404@zytor.com> <50C77F86.5010207@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/11/2012 11:18 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > that will be bunch of asm code again, and need to parse the setup_header in that > asm to get range value for those regions... > It's an index into an array, it's not "parsing". >> >>> but if the user memmap to exclude some page, we will still need to >>> relocate the ramdisk. >> >> -ENOPARSE > > .. I mean pointer for saved ucode will be updated then again. > and relocated_initrd wil still need to use ioremap because init_memory_mapping > will clean mapping the range range that is excluded by memmap=XX$YY > >> >> I really need to look at this in more detail. I'm starting to think >> this is done completely backwards. > > really should not put asm code if it could be done in C in not complicated way. > Uhm... that's not what I'm talking about. -hpa