joe@smittys.pointclark.net wrote:
Quoting Corey Osgood corey.osgood@gmail.com:
joe@smittys.pointclark.net wrote:
Quoting Uwe Hermann uwe@hermann-uwe.de:
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 CPU to be present, no matter what CPU you put in a socket.
(Actually no, not always.)
We should be able to do the same.
I agree, but we should also try to be even more flexible. I think we should allow inclusion of 0<=n<=all microcode updates. Definately an advanced option, but still.
Yep, that's what I meant. It's fine if the default is "all microcode updates", but there should be an option for advanced users to only use the one(s) you really want or need in order to save time and space.
Uwe.
That makes perfect sense.....I like the advanced option idea:-)
Thanks - Joe
This seems like it would get very messy, very quickly. The only way I can come up with to do it is #if's for every single ID, perhaps in some intel_custom folder, so it doesn't make a mess of the existing stuff.
Anyways, I'll get on top of testing this weekend, I have slot 1 (440zx), socket 370 (i810), and socket 479 (i830) boards I can test with, assuming they all still work. If those work, I'll bet the farm that the rest of them do. Everything passes abuild, btw.
-Corey
Yeh, even though it is a good idea it probibly would complicate things alot. For now it may be better to just commit a piece at a time for each processor tested. I'm really interested in how the socket 479 (Pentium M) testing goes. Let us know:-)
Thanks - Joe
I know ;) Uwe, do you have a 440bx board you can try this on? Mine has officially bit the dust. I can say that i810/socket 370 works as expected with 3 different cores. I'll get to the socket 479 if I have time tomorrow, I've been tinkering with the i810 most of the last couple days.
Thanks, Corey