On Wed, 3 Oct 2018, Liang, Kan wrote:
> On 10/3/2018 9:55 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Oct 2018, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > > On 10/3/2018 2:10 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > There is another variant of model/stepping micro code verification code
> > > > in
> > > > intel_snb_pebs_broken(). Can we please make this table based and use a
> > > > common function? That's certainly not the last quirk we're going to
> > > > have.
> > > >
> > > > We already have a table based variant of ucode checking in
> > > > bad_spectre_microcode(). It's trivial enough to generalize that.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sure, I will generalize the bad_spectre_microcode(), rename it to
> > > is_bad_intel_microcode(), and move it to
> > > arch\x86\kernel\cpu\microcode\intel.c.
> >
> > I suggest: is_bad_microcode() and have it in cpu/microcode/core.c unless
> > you are claiming that bad microcode() is an intel only feature.
> >
>
> Yes, other platforms also have microcode issues.
> To make it more generic, I think we also need to extend the struct
> sku_microcode to check vendor and family.
> The "model" in struct x86_cpu_id is u16. I will also change "model" and
> "stepping" to u16.
>
> struct sku_microcode {
> u16 vendor;
> u16 family;
> u16 model;
> u16 stepping;
> u32 microcode;
> };
Makes sense.
Thanks,
tglx
