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

[Peter Oruba]

Giacomo A. Catenazzi schrieb:
> Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
>> 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).
> 
> 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
> 

That sounds like a single-module solution would be the best way to go. All
dependencies would then be handled inside the module.

-Peter

--
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/