Re: [patch 05/11] [PATCH 05/11] x86: Moved microcode.c to microcode_intel.c.

[Dmitry Adamushko]

2008/9/19 Peter Oruba <peter.oruba@xxxxxxx>:
> 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).


>
> Thanks,
> Peter
>

-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/