On 11/15/2012 03:45 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
Add valid patch size for family 16h processors
Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrov...@amd.com>
Is this something that needs to go to -stable ?
#define F1XH_MPB_MAX_SIZE 2048
#define F14H_MPB_MAX_SIZE 1824
#define F15H_MPB_MAX_SIZE 4096
+#define F16H_MPB_MAX_SIZE 3458
switch (c->x86) {
case 0x14:
@@ -198,6 +199,9 @@ static unsigned int verify_patch_size(int cpu, u32
patch_size,
case 0x15:
max_size = F15H_MPB_MAX_SIZE;
break;
+ case 0x16:
+ max_size = F16H_MPB_MAX_SIZE;
+ break;
default:
max_size = F1XH_MPB_MAX_SIZE;
break;
Because it looks like without this patch, some valid microcode updates
would be rejected by the kernel...
Right, patch loading will fail.
I wasn't sure whether stable would be appropriate since this is support
for new HW. OTOH since this would result in loss of functionality one
could consider this a bug.
-boris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
