Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753137Ab2FWBzD (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2012 21:55:03 -0400 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:39999 "EHLO out3-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751778Ab2FWBzB (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2012 21:55:01 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: Fuzh6SxTnWh19QqFu6cW82RxKcCyDqltkYZEB+WP0e1R 1340416500 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:54:58 -0300 From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Borislav Petkov , Peter Zijlstra , "Yu, Fenghua" , X86-ML , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , LKML , Andreas Herrmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86, microcode: Make reload interface per system Message-ID: <20120623015458.GB22572@khazad-dum.debian.net> References: <20120619232857.GH5996@aftab.osrc.amd.com> <1340182778.21745.75.camel@twins> <20120620095616.GB10012@aftab.osrc.amd.com> <1340186931.21745.90.camel@twins> <20120620101943.GE10012@aftab.osrc.amd.com> <1340187720.21745.97.camel@twins> <20120620102747.GF10012@aftab.osrc.amd.com> <1340188391.21745.99.camel@twins> <20120620110914.GA10771@aftab.osrc.amd.com> <4FE4C010.3020005@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FE4C010.3020005@zytor.com> X-GPG-Fingerprint: 1024D/1CDB0FE3 5422 5C61 F6B7 06FB 7E04 3738 EE25 DE3F 1CDB 0FE3 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1237 Lines: 28 On Fri, 22 Jun 2012, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 06/20/2012 04:09 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > Yeah, both should be workable. Let's see what Intel wants to do: hpa, > > Fenghua? > > What we want to do is to have a unified binary blob (which would be > about half that size) but the format may be affected by Fenghua's > ongoing work so we're not quite ready to rev the format now just to do > it again. Any reason why you can't just take a single file with one binary microcode appended back-to-back after the other (i.e. exactly what /dev/cpu/microcode accepts)? You'd only be able to release that memory after all cores were brought online [and any microcode that did get used to update a core was copied somewhere else for future use], but that's hardly a big problem. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- 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/