Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754272AbZCIP6r (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:58:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753102AbZCIP6g (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:58:36 -0400 Received: from vms173003pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.3]:42601 "EHLO vms173003pub.verizon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752958AbZCIP6f (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:58:35 -0400 From: Gene Heskett Organization: Organization? Not detectable To: Sitsofe Wheeler Subject: Re: Linux* Processor Microcode Data File Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:58:22 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.0 (Linux/2.6.28.7; KDE/4.2.0; i686; ; ) Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Dragoslav Zaric , LKML , tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk References: <2d05c4580903090243k6cf73ee9ubb6c4fccf0f07a2f@mail.gmail.com> <20090309081109.376f7a7e@infradead.org> <20090309153449.GB24213@silver.sucs.org> In-reply-to: <20090309153449.GB24213@silver.sucs.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Message-id: <200903091158.22918.gene.heskett@verizon.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4571 Lines: 73 On Monday 09 March 2009, Sitsofe Wheeler wrote: >On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 08:11:09AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 14:16:55 +0000 >> >> Sitsofe Wheeler wrote: >> > The kernel doesn't load microcode automatically >> >> it does if you have the right format; the kernel uses >> request_firmware() for this. >> The microcode on the intel website is not ready for this yet, but we're >> working hard to have future drops to be in the new format. > >Wow so I was redundant AND wrong in the same email! > >What motivated the switch to the generic request_firmware interface? Is >it just less messy/faster than previous methods? > >Additionally while I remember, is it worth updating the microcode on all >machines? At present I have an EeePC 900 and it's unclear if it would >benefit from a microcode update (but there's a definite cost to running >the current initscript at boot). Slight hijack of thread here, but... I'll have to admit it was with some trepidation that I might brick my processor, which is a quad core AMD 9550, stepping 03 running at 2.2 ghz, but the directions didn't note until the end, that it would take a 2.6.29 series kernel to do it and I was running 2.6.28.7. But when I got to the modprobe -r microcode, modprobe microcode part, there was no feedback from either command. So did I, or did I not do this as I was and am running 2.6.28.7? The following was reported in my log: Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.810333] microcode: collect_cpu_info_amd : patch_id=0x1000065 Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.810338] platform microcode: firmware: requesting amd-ucode/microcode_amd.bin Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.847258] microcode: size 1936, total_size 960 Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.847265] microcode: CPU0 patch does not match (processor_rev_id: 1020, eqiv_cpu_id: 1022) Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.847269] microcode: size 968, total_size 960 Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.847278] microcode: CPU0 updated from revision 0x1000065 to 0x1000083 Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.847312] microcode: collect_cpu_info_amd : patch_id=0x1000065 Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.847317] platform microcode: firmware: requesting amd-ucode/microcode_amd.bin Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.851377] microcode: size 1936, total_size 960 Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.851390] microcode: CPU1 patch does not match (processor_rev_id: 1020, eqiv_cpu_id: 1022) Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.851393] microcode: size 968, total_size 960 Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.851403] microcode: CPU1 updated from revision 0x1000065 to 0x1000083 Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.851421] microcode: collect_cpu_info_amd : patch_id=0x1000065 Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.851426] platform microcode: firmware: requesting amd-ucode/microcode_amd.bin Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.855323] microcode: size 1936, total_size 960 Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.855330] microcode: CPU2 patch does not match (processor_rev_id: 1020, eqiv_cpu_id: 1022) Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.855333] microcode: size 968, total_size 960 Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.855344] microcode: CPU2 updated from revision 0x1000065 to 0x1000083 Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.855361] microcode: collect_cpu_info_amd : patch_id=0x1000065 Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.855365] platform microcode: firmware: requesting amd-ucode/microcode_amd.bin Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.863101] microcode: size 1936, total_size 960 Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.863107] microcode: CPU3 patch does not match (processor_rev_id: 1020, eqiv_cpu_id: 1022) Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.863110] microcode: size 968, total_size 960 Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.863120] microcode: CPU3 updated from revision 0x1000065 to 0x1000083 Mar 9 07:22:04 coyote kernel: [65725.863122] Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 , Peter Oruba Inquiring minds and all that. Comments please? -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) "I have five dollars for each of you." -- Bernhard Goetz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/