Quoting Corey Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Quoting Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 03:54:18PM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 09:42:00AM -0500, Corey Osgood wrote:
> Peter Stuge wrote:
>
>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 03:54:18PM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 09:42:00AM -0500, Corey Osgood wrote:
>>>
Peter Stuge wrote:
> I think we need to make it conf
ron minnich wrote:
> note that on V3, we have the neat ability to put microcode in LAR, and
> find it there on boot.
>
> So we might have another top level directory: /microcode
>
> And then you can figure out, long after the bios is built, which
> microcode updates you want to support.
>
> ron
>
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 05:27:48PM -0800, ron minnich wrote:
> note that on V3, we have the neat ability to put microcode in LAR,
> and find it there on boot.
>
> So we might have another top level directory: /microcode
>
> And then you can figure out, long after the bios is built, which
> microc
note that on V3, we have the neat ability to put microcode in LAR, and
find it there on boot.
So we might have another top level directory: /microcode
And then you can figure out, long after the bios is built, which
microcode updates you want to support.
ron
--
linuxbios mailing list
linuxbios
Quoting Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 03:54:18PM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 09:42:00AM -0500, Corey Osgood wrote:
>> > Peter Stuge wrote:
>> > > I think we need to make it configurable.
>> >
>> > I don't like that. With a factory bios, you exp
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 03:54:18PM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 09:42:00AM -0500, Corey Osgood wrote:
> > Peter Stuge wrote:
> > > I think we need to make it configurable.
> >
> > I don't like that. With a factory bios, you expect the correct
> > microcode update for your CP
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 09:42:00AM -0500, Corey Osgood wrote:
> Peter Stuge wrote:
> > I think we need to make it configurable.
>
> I don't like that. With a factory bios, you expect the correct
> microcode update for your CPU to be present, no matter what CPU you
> put in a socket.
(Actually no,
Peter Stuge wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:34:28PM -0500, Corey Osgood wrote:
>
>>> How many different cores could you put in even the most popular
>>> socket, three?
>>>
>> LGA775 currently has 19 (and may have more I don't know about).
>> Using some rough math, I get a rounded-down
Quoting Corey Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
>> On 11.01.2008 02:33, Corey Osgood wrote:
>>
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>
Quoting Corey Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Do you mean the microcode files? If so, the microcode update looks like
>
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 09:36:20PM -0500, Corey Osgood wrote:
> Both patches Signed-off-by: Corey Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I checked that this doesn't break abuild, so far so good.
On which hardware has this been tested so far? I'm reluctant to commit
this without some broader testing on actual
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 04:34:39AM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:34:28PM -0500, Corey Osgood wrote:
> > > How many different cores could you put in even the most popular
> > > socket, three?
> >
> > LGA775 currently has 19 (and may have more I don't know about).
> > Using
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:34:28PM -0500, Corey Osgood wrote:
> > How many different cores could you put in even the most popular
> > socket, three?
>
> LGA775 currently has 19 (and may have more I don't know about).
> Using some rough math, I get a rounded-down size of 186KB (really
> is quite a
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> On 11.01.2008 02:33, Corey Osgood wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Quoting Corey Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>>
Do you mean the microcode files? If so, the microcode update looks like
this:
Header
Upd
On 11.01.2008 02:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>
>> Do you see any way to solve the "size problem" for sockets with too many
>> different cores?
>>
> Not sure what you mean? How many different cores could you put in even
> the most popular soc
Quoting Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Do you see any way to solve the "size problem" for sockets with too many
> different cores?
>
> Regards,
> Carl-Daniel
>
Not sure what you mean? How many different cores could you put in even
the most popular socket, three?
Thanks - Joe
On 11.01.2008 02:33, Corey Osgood wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Quoting Corey Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>> Do you mean the microcode files? If so, the microcode update looks like
>>> this:
>>>
>>> Header
>>> Update Revision
>>> Date
>>> Processor Signature (CPU ID)
>>> ...
>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Corey Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Quoting Corey Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>>
I've separated this into two patches, one code and one microcode, to
improve readability, but they would both have to be committed at on
Quoting Corey Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Quoting Corey Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>
>>> I've separated this into two patches, one code and one microcode, to
>>> improve readability, but they would both have to be committed at once
>>> (else things break). These
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Corey Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>> I've separated this into two patches, one code and one microcode, to
>> improve readability, but they would both have to be committed at once
>> (else things break). These patches eliminate a lot of repeated code,
>> mak
Quoting Corey Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I've separated this into two patches, one code and one microcode, to
> improve readability, but they would both have to be committed at once
> (else things break). These patches eliminate a lot of repeated code,
> make porting and adding new CPUs easier,
21 matches
Mail list logo
