Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751090AbeAPVaV (ORCPT + 1 other); Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:30:21 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:50955 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750772AbeAPVaU (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:30:20 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,369,1511856000"; d="scan'208";a="10751886" Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:30:19 -0800 From: "Luck, Tony" To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Jia Zhang , "hmh@hmh.eng.br" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode/intel: Extend BDW late-loading with LLC size check Message-ID: <20180116213018.gqcvmbwog5kwg63l@agluck-desk> References: <1516021917-48335-1-git-send-email-zhang.jia@linux.alibaba.com> <20180115184616.r6pypjegywyd7ncm@pd.tnic> <2ddaecd3-c121-cb37-219e-0e7b1d17c22e@linux.alibaba.com> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F7B333F37@FMSMSX154.amr.corp.intel.com> <20180116200149.zffwdbjwj53ba7oj@pd.tnic> <20180116201158.7mu6pj6ynqrfdxe4@agluck-desk> <20180116205037.lzudhvyymyuxjccu@pd.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180116205037.lzudhvyymyuxjccu@pd.tnic> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 09:50:37PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > ... and there's not a more reliable way to detect those like platform ID > or so? Because if for anywhere, this is where one *should* use platform > ID. > > Or perhaps some other bit somewhere instead of this cache size thing? I could get you a list of model numbers that you can check against model_name. But that seems way worse. Especially as the 2.5MB thing is what is called out in the erratum. -Tony