On 22.07.2008 19:56, Marc Jones wrote: > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > ... >>> + (c) Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 2004-2008 >>> + >>> + The enclosed microcode is intended to be used with AMD >>> + Microprocessors. You may copy, view and install the >>> + enclosed microcode only for development and deployment of >>> + firmware, BIOS, or operating system code for computer >>> + systems that contain AMD processors. You are not >>> + authorized to use the enclosed microcode for any other >>> + purpose. >>> >> >> I trust that AMD is not going to hunt us down if we check out the >> complete svn tree (copy) with the intent to develop for non-AMD systems. >> Still, the legalese feels a bit weird. >> >> > > You bring this up every time I update microcode patches. This has been > worked out in the past. The statement seems very straight forward to > me (but I am not a lawyer).
I wish to apologize. I can't seem to remember having made a similar statement in the past, but I'm not going to object the inclusion of this code. Go ahead. >>> +/* From the Revision Guide : >>> + * Equivalent Processor Table for AMD Family 10h Processors >>> + * >>> + * Installed Processor Equivalent Processor Patch Level >>> + * Revision ID Revision ID >>> + * 00100F00h 1000h 01000020h >>> + * 00100F01h 1000h 01000020h >>> + * 00100F02h 1000h 01000020h >>> + * 00100F20h 1020h 01000084h >>> + * 00100F21h 1020h 01000084h >>> + * 00100F2Ah 1020h 01000084h >>> + * 00100F22h 1022h 01000083h >>> + * 00100F23h 1022h 01000083h >>> >> >> AFAICS it could happen that different "Equivalent Processor IDs" have >> the same patch level. Naming the microcode files only after the patch >> level would cause all sorts of interesting conflicts in that case. >> How about a naming scheme like >> mc_patch_$EQUIVALENTREVISION_$PATCHLEVEL.h > > I don't see your point. The code already handles equivalent processor > ids. I put the table in so you didn't have to read the revision guide > to understand what is going on. What you suggest only makes it more > difficult if different equivalent ids have the same patch level. Hm. Maybe I misunderstand the current scheme, but I think it breaks exactly for the case you cite: "different equivalent ids have the same patch level". > #include "mc_patch_01000065.h" >>> + /* Barcelona rev B2, B3 */ >>> + #include "mc_patch_01000083.h" >>> >> >> This looks like manual source code editing is required to support >> Barcelona processors before B2. May I suggest a Kconfig variable for >> that? >> > > Yes, it is manual editing so I will add a config option to v2. A > Kconfig variable would be great when you port it to v3. :) Heh. I live in the v3 world and forgot about the nonexistence of Kconfig in v2. I'll take care of the conversion to Kconfig for a v3 port. Does this changeset also include a removal of old microcode? Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
