[LinuxBIOS] [PATCH] remove duplicated microcode updates for some Intel processors

[Corey Osgood]

ron minnich wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2007 9:00 PM,  <joe at smittys.pointclark.net> wrote:
>   
>> Quoting Corey Osgood <corey.osgood at gmail.com>:
>>     
>>> Acked-by: Corey Osgood <corey.osgood at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> how long has it been since we've updated the microcode updates?
>>>
>>>       
>> No idea, but remember the email below from 12/12/07? Looks like an
>> update is in order, but I wouldn't know where to start.
>>
>> Thanks - Joe
>>
>>     
>>> Quoting Martin.Karlsson at emerson.com:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Yesterday I wrote some code for the Syslinux boot loader that is meant
>>>> to boot different images based on which revision of the CPU microcode
>>>> that is currently loaded in the CPU (yes, this is a bit strange but we
>>>> have a very good reason for it). I then compared my implementation with
>>>> a few others an ran across yours, in
>>>> http://www.openbios.org/viewvc/trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/src/cpu/intel/microcode
>>>> /microcode.c?view=markup
>>>>
>>>> Question to you guys: why is the first wrmsr instruction there? From my
>>>> understanding, by not properly initialising ECX, EAX and EDX this will
>>>> overwrite whatever is in the MSR pointed to by ECX?!
>>>>
>>>> BTW I tried out your code on our target hardware (Intel Celeron M, 600
>>>> MHz) and with that first wrmsr line in place it hangs and without it, it
>>>> runs just fine.
>>>>
>>>> Just wanted to let you know.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Martin Karlsson
>>>>         
>> --
>> linuxbios mailing list
>> linuxbios at linuxbios.org
>> http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
>>
>>     
>
> I submitted the patch to remove this extraneous wrmsr a while back. I
> can't recall if it was acked and committed, but I thought it was.
>   

I don't recall the patch, nor can I find it. It's not in the original
thread, and a gmail search for "microcode" doesn't bring it up.

I'm working on a microcode update patch right now, but it's going to
require some refactoring of the current code, the current unified
microcode update is 1.0MB. I've tried factoring it down to just the 6xx
stuff, but it was still well over 500K

> I have two other patches in limbo:
> 1. fix to buildtarget to enable switches like -fno-stack-protector
>   

I'll test this tomorrow, it's past 3am here. It also needs a sign-off.

-Corey

> 2. fix to lib/lar.c to enable parameter passing to lar executables.
>
> thanks
>
> ron
>