On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:27:08PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Yes, in your case, everything is fine in the kernel itself. And no
> > microcode update is needed for new CPU, thus no firmware.
>
> Can the driver decide if the CPU need microcode? Or there will
> be the microcode for the CPU in
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Thu, 23 May 2013 10:48:00 -0400,
> Dave Jones wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 04:36:20PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>>
>> > > >> Also udev supports user-defined rules to load firmware, which
>> > > >> means some drivers may not put
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Thu, 23 May 2013 22:28:51 +0800,
> Ming Lei wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>> > At Thu, 23 May 2013 21:04:53 +0800,
>> > Ming Lei wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Thu, 23 May 2013 10:48:00 -0400,
Dave Jones wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 04:36:20PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> > > >> Also udev supports user-defined rules to load firmware, which
> > > >> means some drivers may not put their firmware in the default
> > > >> path of distribution'
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 04:36:20PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > >> Also udev supports user-defined rules to load firmware, which
> > >> means some drivers may not put their firmware in the default
> > >> path of distribution's firmware.
> > >
> > > It's why I suggested to put a warning in
At Thu, 23 May 2013 22:28:51 +0800,
Ming Lei wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Thu, 23 May 2013 21:04:53 +0800,
> > Ming Lei wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >> > At Thu, 23 May 2013 18:45:29 +0800,
> >> > Ming Lei wrote
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Thu, 23 May 2013 21:04:53 +0800,
> Ming Lei wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>> > At Thu, 23 May 2013 18:45:29 +0800,
>> > Ming Lei wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
At Thu, 23 May 2013 21:04:53 +0800,
Ming Lei wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Thu, 23 May 2013 18:45:29 +0800,
> > Ming Lei wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >> >
> >> > No, f/w loader always fall back to user mode helpe
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Thu, 23 May 2013 18:45:29 +0800,
> Ming Lei wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>> >
>> > No, f/w loader always fall back to user mode helper, as long as its
>> > support is built in. And doing that for micro
At Thu, 23 May 2013 18:45:29 +0800,
Ming Lei wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> > No, f/w loader always fall back to user mode helper, as long as its
> > support is built in. And doing that for microcode driver in that code
> > path isn't only superfluous but a
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> No, f/w loader always fall back to user mode helper, as long as its
> support is built in. And doing that for microcode driver in that code
> path isn't only superfluous but also broken due to request_firmware
> call in module init.
Firstl
At Thu, 23 May 2013 18:27:57 +0800,
Ming Lei wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> > Thinking on this again, if the user-space continues to be broken in
> > that point, we should provide request_firmware() variant without udev,
> > e.g. request_firmware_direct(), a
At Thu, 23 May 2013 15:48:52 +0530,
anish singh wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Thu, 23 May 2013 10:06:56 +0200,
> > Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >>
> >> At Thu, 23 May 2013 15:45:32 +0800,
> >> Ming Lei wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Dave J
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> Thinking on this again, if the user-space continues to be broken in
> that point, we should provide request_firmware() variant without udev,
> e.g. request_firmware_direct(), and use it in known places like this?
As anish said, it has been
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Thu, 23 May 2013 10:06:56 +0200,
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
>>
>> At Thu, 23 May 2013 15:45:32 +0800,
>> Ming Lei wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
>> > > > On 05/21/2013 04:03 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
>> > > >
At Thu, 23 May 2013 10:06:56 +0200,
Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> At Thu, 23 May 2013 15:45:32 +0800,
> Ming Lei wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > > On 05/21/2013 04:03 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [ 72.318133] microcode: CPU1 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, r
At Thu, 23 May 2013 15:45:32 +0800,
Ming Lei wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > On 05/21/2013 04:03 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > [ 72.318133] microcode: CPU1 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6
> > > [ 132.446449] microcode: CPU2 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, re
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On 05/21/2013 04:03 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> >
> > [ 72.318133] microcode: CPU1 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6
> > [ 132.446449] microcode: CPU2 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6
> > [ 192.573101] microcode: CPU3 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x
At Wed, 22 May 2013 23:39:11 -0400,
Dave Jones wrote:
>
> > On 05/21/2013 04:03 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> >
> > [ 72.318133] microcode: CPU1 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6
> > [ 132.446449] microcode: CPU2 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6
> > [ 192.573101] microcode: CPU3 sig=0x306c3,
> On 05/21/2013 04:03 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> [ 72.318133] microcode: CPU1 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6
> [ 132.446449] microcode: CPU2 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6
> [ 192.573101] microcode: CPU3 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6
> [ 252.702055] microcode: Microcode Update
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:09:52PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
>
> >On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:03:04PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > On 05/21/2013 04:03 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > > In 3.10-rc2 I see this happening..
> > > >
> > > > [ 72.318133] microcode: CP
A bisect would be appreciated. Cc Fenghua.
Dave Jones wrote:
>On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:03:04PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 05/21/2013 04:03 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > In 3.10-rc2 I see this happening..
> > >
> > > [ 72.318133] microcode: CPU1 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6
> >
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:03:04PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 05/21/2013 04:03 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > In 3.10-rc2 I see this happening..
> >
> > [ 72.318133] microcode: CPU1 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6
> > [ 132.446449] microcode: CPU2 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6
> >
On 05/21/2013 04:03 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> In 3.10-rc2 I see this happening..
>
> [ 72.318133] microcode: CPU1 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6
> [ 132.446449] microcode: CPU2 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6
> [ 192.573101] microcode: CPU3 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6
> [ 252.702055]
In 3.10-rc2 I see this happening..
[ 72.318133] microcode: CPU1 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6
[ 132.446449] microcode: CPU2 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6
[ 192.573101] microcode: CPU3 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x6
[ 252.702055] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00
, Peter Or
25 matches
Mail list logo