> That's not enough. The integers in the url of
> https://review.coreboot.org/cgit/blobs.git/tree/cpu/intel/microcode/update-microcodes.sh#n24
> change aswell, not just MICROCODE_VERSION.

I am empirical/practical guy, mit wenig Zeit (zu viele Dinge zu tun), dann ich sole super schnell Denken machen (taking some German practice as well, I must, it is bad).

I see some of earlier MCU packet downloads, so these are the following:

As we all in Coreboot now see (attn: Martin, Patrick, Ron, Stefan), the latest and greatest you pointed to should be taken and implemented. It is, (Mein Gott), ~ 4,5x size

of old currently used (20150121), so, my best guess, action is here needed on behalf of above mentioned people (to enrich Coreboot MCU database).

> So if you're suggesting that a download fails, that's not the issue.

NOPE! I did/do not suggest that (it is, maybe, language limitation, I feel all the time in German). I suggest to add the 4th I/F (dump_cpuids) in the update-microcodes.sh_

bash.

Then, the following file I got from it on 20150121 (attached to this email dump_cpuids.txt).

Furthermore, since you are targeting Haswell, luckily enough, my HP EliteBook 840 G1 is based upon i3-4300U Haswell. What do I have here?

This:

[user@localhost microcode]$ uname -r

4.13.13-200.fc26.x86_64

[user@localhost microcode]$ dmesg | grep i5

[ 0.100550] smpboot: CPU0: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4300U CPU @ 1.90GHz (family: 0x6, model: 0x45, stepping: 0x1)

[user@localhost microcode]$

This is CPUID 0x40651 (I know this by heart, no questions asked)! ;-)

Now, if you search the file on 40651 I have created and attached on this email, you'll get the following:

Model: 40651(4065x) Microcode: microcode-m7240651_0000001c.h (copied)

I guess, for one, who is smart, I gave even redundant info. ;-)

Good Luck,

Zoran Stojsavljevic

PS. Please, google what MCU is (Micro Code Unit and purpose of it), I am too lazy to write about it!

_______

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Martin Kepplinger <martink@posteo.de> wrote:

Am 21.11.2017 12:42 schrieb Zoran Stojsavljevic:

I know very little about it really. It may well be potentially bad

to simply use the latest version,

but in case it's really only because nobody did it, I might prepare

a patch to use

downloadmirror.intel.com/27337/eng/microcode-20171117.tgz [1]

instead (someday, after

I testing it on my device).

To understand what is really going on, I did the following
investigation on my only coreboot clone version,
I have on my current SSD the following: WIN10, using VMware®
Workstation 12 Player, version 12.5.8 build-7098237
with Fedora 26 VM, where the coreboot is located.

CLI transcript follows:

_[user@localhost coreboot]$ pwd_
_/home/user/projects/coreboot/coreboot_
_[user@localhost coreboot]$ git describe_
_4.5-1006-gef7e98a2ac_
_[user@localhost coreboot]$ grep -r 20150121 *_
_3rdparty/blobs/cpu/intel/microcode/update-microcodes.sh:MICROCODE_VERSION=20150121_
_[user@localhost coreboot]$ cd 3rdparty/blobs/cpu/intel/microcode_
_[user@localhost microcode]$ ls -al_
_total 24_
_drwxrwxr-x. 2 user user 12288 Nov 21 12:27 ._
_drwxrwxr-x. 24 user user 4096 Feb 18 2017 .._
_-rwxrwxr-x. 1 user user 1782 Feb 18 2017 microcode2bin.sh_
_-rwxrwxr-x. 1 user user 2989 Nov 21 12:27 update-microcodes.sh_
_[user@localhost microcode]$ tail -10 update-microcodes.sh _
_}_

_get_microcode_
_separate_microcode_
_move_microcode_
_DUMP_CPUIDS <<=========================== I ADDED THIS LINE OF CODE
TO SEE WHICH CPUIDS'S MCUS ARE ADDED HERe: _

_rm -f $MICROCODE_ARCHIVE_
_rm -f $MICROCODE_FILE_

_[user@localhost microcode]$ _

Now, you can substitute 20150121.tgz with 20171117 [1].tgz in bash
shell script update-microcodes.sh and see what will happen?!

That's not enough. The integers in the url of
https://review.coreboot.org/cgit/blobs.git/tree/cpu/intel/microcode/update-microcodes.sh#n24
change aswell, not just MICROCODE_VERSION.

So if you're suggesting that a download fails, that's not the issue.

But maybe I got you wrong. Anyways, I haven't tried to change and run it. I might. so...

thanks

martin