On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Larry Finger<Larry.Finger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ugh. I hate that patch.
It's completely stupid. If "rdmsr_safe()" doesn't work at that point
in the boot, then it's pointless to call it.
So this change is pure and utter crap:
- rdmsr_safe(MSR_AMD64_PATCH_LEVEL,&c->microcode,&dummy);
+ if (c->x86>= 0xf)
+ rdmsr_safe(MSR_AMD64_PATCH_LEVEL,&c->microcode,&dummy);
because it is misleading as hell: that rdmsr isn't *safe* at all, so
why are we calling "rdmsr_safe()"?
It's wrong.
The right patch would either just remove the "safe" part (and just say
that the register has to be supported if c->x86>= 0xf), but quite
honestly, I don't see why we do that thing in early_init_amd() AT ALL.
Afaik, the microcode version field isn't really *needed* by the
kernelin the first place, much less is it needed by the *early* boot,
so why isn't this in 'init_amd()' a bit later when the "safe" version
actually *works*?
IOW, I think the patch should be something like the attached (TOTALLY
UNTESTED) patch. Larry, does this work for you? It just moves the
rdmsr_safe() to the later function.
Borislav?
I just updated mainline to 3.2-rc4, and that patch is not included. Please
check with Ingo to see why it was not available. It is a real show stopper
for old AMD CPUs.
Ingo seems to have fallen off the earth for the last two weeks.
There's *one* email form him about 12 hours ago, before that the last
one I see is from early November.
Ingo, everything ok?
Linus