On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 04:26:28PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Yes, it seems that a
Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org>
(at least for 3.2, 3.4, 3.6)
can't hurt to ensure that most recent kernel releases properly handle
ucode updates for family 16h CPUs (whenever they come out).
Andreas
--
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/
