Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:55:23 +0100 | From | Andreas Herrmann <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |