Re: [LinuxBIOS] Intel refactoring and microcode updates

Quoting Corey Osgood :
> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> > On 11.01.2008 02:33, Corey Osgood wrote:
> > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > Quoting Corey Osgood :
> > > > > Do you mean the microcode files? If so, the microcode update looks like
> > > > > this:
> > > > >
> > > > > Header
> > > > > Update Revision
> > > > > Date
> > > > > Processor Signature (CPU ID)
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > So, the 4th entry in the update is always the CPU ID, and conveniently
> > > > > it's always the last one on the first line. It also makes grepping for
> > > > > them very easy, once you have the update broken down into smaller files.
> > > > > This is documented *somewhere* in LB, but I can't find it at the moment.
> > > > > It's also in the Intel architecture manual, volume 3a, table 9-6.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the past we labeled some CPU IDs as to what CPUs they belonged to. In
> > > > > truth, Intel uses the same CPU IDs for a variety of CPUs, for instance
> > > > > in some cases Celeron, Pentium X, and Xeons all share a common ID, since
> > > > > the core is still the same. So we can't really do that any more ;)
> > > >
> > > > Oh ok, that makes sense.
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Joseph Smith
> > >
> > > Thanks, Joe. Anyone else have anything to say? Honestly expected more
> > > feedback, but if there are no objections I'll commit it tomorrow.
> > >
> > > The other thing I forgot to mention was that all the data on CPU IDs
> > > came from the existing code and this site:
> > > http://processorfinder.intel.com. Some of them are a bit unclear on what
> > > sockets they use, but if anything comes up wrong, we can easily correct it.
> >
> > Do you see any way to solve the "size problem" for sockets with too many
> > different cores? It would also be interesting to find out if your work
> > on stripping duplicate contents gives us new opportunities to reduce
> > size even further.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Carl-Daniel
>
> I'm thinking lzma compression, it knocks the files down to about 1/3
> their current size or smaller. But I hate to introduce lzma as a
> requirement, especially just for this one task, and some distros don't
> have lzma prepackaged. I have already removed all the duplicate updates,
> so the only option is possibly eliminating more cores, for socket 604,
> and for lga775 it's either breaking things down into smaller subsets
> (pentium vs. core, as i mentioned before), or larger flash chips.
>
> [e-mail] wrote:
> > Not sure what you mean? How many different cores could you put in even
> > the most popular socket, three?
> >
> > Thanks - Joe
>
> 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
> bit more) for its updates, and that would go into both normal and
> fallback images.
>
> -Corey

Wow I guess I didn't realize LGA775 had so many.....

Thanks - Joe