Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753615AbZCIQYi (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:24:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751914AbZCIQYa (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:24:30 -0400 Received: from silver.sucs.swan.ac.uk ([137.44.10.1]:40044 "EHLO silver.sucs.swan.ac.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751599AbZCIQY3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:24:29 -0400 Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:24:16 +0000 From: Sitsofe Wheeler To: Gene Heskett Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Dragoslav Zaric , LKML , tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk, Andreas Herrmann Subject: Re: Linux* Processor Microcode Data File Message-ID: <20090309162416.GC24213@silver.sucs.org> References: <2d05c4580903090243k6cf73ee9ubb6c4fccf0f07a2f@mail.gmail.com> <20090309081109.376f7a7e@infradead.org> <20090309153449.GB24213@silver.sucs.org> <200903091158.22918.gene.heskett@verizon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200903091158.22918.gene.heskett@verizon.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2484 Lines: 45 At the risk of being wrong twice in a row... On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 11:58:22AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > 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 Microcode patching in this particular fashion (i.e. _not_ updating the BIOS but "on the fly") is volatile (so it has to be redone at every boot) which should mean it is very hard to brick a machine this way as rebooting will undo everything. Of course someone is going to tell me how they managed to kill a machine stone dead due to some sequence of events I hadn't thought of and I disclaim any responsiblity if someone tries to update their microcode and harms their machine in any fashion - you update at your own risk :). > 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: modprobe generally doesn't return much if the module in question loads or (as in this case because you were using -r) is removed. That's the typical Unix command line behviour - no response/output on "OK". > 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? It looks like the firmware file (amd-ucode/microcode_amd.bin) doesn't match your processor. CC'ing Andreas for comment as you have an AMD machine... -- Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/ -- 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/