lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86, microcode, AMD: Add support for family 16h processors
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 04:26:28PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>
>
> On 11/15/2012 03:45 PM, 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 <boris.ostrovsky@amd.com>
> >
> >Is this something that needs to go to -stable ?
> >
> >> #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...
>
> Right, patch loading will fail.
>
> I wasn't sure whether stable would be appropriate since this is
> support for new HW. OTOH since this would result in loss of
> functionality one could consider this a bug.

Yes, it seems that a

Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>

(at least for 3.2, 3.4, 3.6)

can't hurt to ensure that most recent kernel releases properly handle
ucode updates for family 16h CPUs (whenever they come out).


Andreas


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-15 23:21    [W:0.271 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site