[coreboot] [PATCH] disabling microcode update

[Alex G.]

On 02/23/2011 03:51 PM, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
>
> Pompous ? 
>
Yes. This is an option for experienced users, and people too smart for
they own sake (pozitive connotation), that value their freedom more than
practicality. They will go to an extra effort to ensure that. Therefore,
considering the above, an option in menuconfig (gtkconfig, xconfig,
etch) is pompous.

> 
> If that is too visible for you I don't know how to build an option that different users 
> may enable or disable. 
> 
Well, how about I simply need to add a
select DISABLE_MICROCODE_UPDATE
in my board's Kconfig file?

> If you mean visible in the source code: 
>
It will have to appear in the source code for it to work. I'd have to be
unreasonable to say "make it invisible in the source code".


> 
> About newcomers complaining because they've disabled microcode update, 
> it's not somethign that would happen without user action, and we already 
> have newcomers (Ivaylo and I) complaining because the microcode update 
> it giving us trouble. We can add a note in Kconfig help like :
> 
When I decide to dedicate my time to helping someone on IRC who has
problems getting coreboot to run, I don't want them to keep me on hold,
and then say "I also tried with this 'disable microcode update' option,
and it still didn't work". It has happened before with other options,
completely irrelevant to their issue.

> "If you unselect this option and have some problem you want to ask 
> about in the coreboot mailing list (or elsewhere) please report clearly
> you disable microcode update, since some developers strongly advise against this."
> 
> 
>> If I _really_ wanted to disable microcode updates, I would simply
>> comment out a line of code.
>>
> 
> That's what I did ! But I found out there were more people than just myself
> wanting this option, so I tried to code a patch that would change nothing 
> for those who wanted the old behaviour but would allow to disable microcode
> update and keep testing new svn revisions, sending patches, etc. without 
> the hurdle of a local modification, for those of us that need it.
>
That's what I would do _myself_. That isn't to say I don't agree with
other options.
And yet, I doubt adding a Kconfig line will be much of a hassle.

> If I had know how polemic it all would become I've probably hadn't sent
> the "pompous" patch at all.
> 
Please take no offense in seeing your patch as "pompous". It is not. It
is the option in menuconfig that is pompous.
The "polemic" is good. If we take the time to digest it now, we will
have a precedent to refer to next time it comes up.

> But I won't follow along this route, because we simply don't agree in enough 
> categories to agree in this.
> 
If you had asked me about disabling microcode updates a week ago, I
would probably have laughed and not even have thought of it. I respect
your point of view, and that is why I am _thinking_ about this, and of a
way to incorporate it without much noise to both of us (though you could
argue that noise has already been generated).

>> I'm not voting no on this, just so as long as it is completely invisible
>> to me.
>>
> 
> Please specify which of Option A, B, or C do you prefer, or propose something
> else, if you don't vote no. I can't code a completely invisible patch to a free software
> project that evolves in the open like coreboot.  
> Whatever I do you will see it if you look at it.
>
Yes, I will see it if I look for it explicitly. There's nothing I can do
about that, and to reject it for this reason would be nothing but malice
from my side.
Is the 'adding a line in Kconfig' option hassle free enough for you?
I just don't see a way to make it obscure enough it menuconfig, but I
won't object if you do find one.

Alex