On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:46:34AM +0200, Oliver Pinter wrote: > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018, Ed Maste <ema...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 at 18:17, Sean Bruno <sbr...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > > On 06/12/18 16:05, Oliver Pinter wrote: > > > > On 5/22/18, Ed Maste <ema...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > >> Author: emaste > > > >> Date: Tue May 22 14:35:33 2018 > > > >> New Revision: 334046 > > > >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/334046 > > > >> > > > >> Log: > > > >> intel-ucode-split: add -n flag to skip creating output files > > > >> > > > >> Sponsored by: The FreeBSD Foundation > > > >> > > > >> Modified: > > > >> head/tools/tools/intel-ucode-split/intel-ucode-split.c > > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > Could you please MFC the intel-ucode-split related commits to > > 11-STABLE? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > op > > > > > > Do you need it in base for some reason? This code is already in the > > > devcpu-data port and is used when the port is built. Its not needed for > > > anything AFAIK. > > > > Indeed, the real use in FreeBSD is via the devcpu-data port; I > > committed it to src/tools/ for collaboration and testing. I'll merge > > it to stable/11 if it will be useful for someone, but am curious about > > the use case. > > > > > I'm considering to write an in kernel microcode update facility, based on > firmware(9), and in first idea it would be nice during the generation of > firmware modules.
FWIW, I'm working on this for 12.0 and was planning to describe my proposal on -arch in the next couple of weeks. For my purposes at least, firmware(9) isn't suitable. We'd like to ensure that updates are applied before the kernel does CPU identification, and that happens quite early during boot. This places some constraints on the implementation which exclude firmware(9). _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
