On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 02:35:58PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Andi Kleen wrote: > > For testing purposes it can be useful to downgrade microcode. > > Normally the driver only allows upgrading. > > The code is not prepared to work correctly when downgrading is allowed, in > the presence of shadowed microcode. When a firmware request results in more
As I wrote it's only for testing purposes when you know what you're doing (typically with a special micro code file) Your whole argument is irrelevant, as it only applies to normal users who should never use this option. > Also, since you're going to mess with this, why don't you implement the > correct semanthics for microcode with the sign bit set? Making it signed > actually makes the current code behaviour worse. > > Refer to: http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/3/21/522 I don't think it makes it worse. In fact I'm essentially implementing Burt's request "for explicit user action" with the new override option. Anyways I suppose your rant killed the patch anyways. Congratulations! -Andi -- 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/
