Re: [PATCH] x86 microcode: work_on_cpu and cleanup of the synchronization logic

[Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>]

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