Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:58:37 +0200 | From | "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <> | Subject | Re: [patch 05/11] [PATCH 05/11] x86: Moved microcode.c to microcode_intel.c. |
| |
Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > 2008/9/19 Peter Oruba <peter.oruba@amd.com>: >> Some additonal words regarding the current user space issues: >> >> IMHO the most convenient way to update microcode is through the firmware loading >> interface instead of microcode_ctl. This reduces user-space responsibilities to >> loading the correct module at boot time and to place the microcode patch file at >> the right location via package installation. The problems mentioned in this >> thread would then probably disappear as well. What do you guys think? > > It'd still require changes for all the setups that currently rely on > the 'microcode_ctl' interface. Moreover, Arjan's setup failed not due > to the 'microcode_ctl' per se but due to the altered kernel module > name. After all, we can't break the established interface this way. > > We can either reserve 'microcode' as a legacy name for intel cpus (== > microcode_intel), or maybe we can use request_module() from > microcode.ko to load a proper arch-specific module (I guess, it's not > ok for !KMOD-enabled kernels).
I agree. A wrapper "microcode.ko" module would be nice, in order to allow independent kernel and user space upgrades.
The module name is important also on udev method: only a module load triggers the microcode request in udev, thus also the new method should have stable kernel module name.
ciao cate
| |