[coreboot] Removing microcode updates from blobs
kyosti.malkki at gmail.com
Sat Dec 14 08:47:06 CET 2013
On 12/14/2013 05:44 AM, ron minnich wrote:
> Scott, I don't see the point of this change either.
> In the beginning, we had no microcode in coreboot, per the main goal:
> let linux do it. We just let Linux do the update. Not our problem.
> At some point, ca. 2005 or so, we had to let the blobs in because many
> of the new CPUs are *broken* without the microcode update: the
> microcode that comes embedded in the CPU must be updated or you'll get
> some real problems, and possibly not even get through firmware.
> As you point out, this is nothing like the VGA BIOS issue.
> So, sure, it's pure to build without the microcode blob, which means
> in reality that you're deciding to use the microcode blob *already
> embedded in the CPU*. And, on many new CPUs, the one that comes with
> the CPU has issues that mean you won't get past DRAM init. And, if you
> do get past DRAM init and boot, you've got a CPU that may have subtle
> errors and corrupt memory. Oh, joy.
> I guess I don't understand why people feel better being able to build
> a firmware image which will boot the CPU in a broken mode.
I do not understand builds without microcode updates either, but there
are the legal aspects to concern.
Microcode update files downloaded from Intel or AMD sites may contain
licensing terms not compatible with GPLv2. Those original license texts
have not been enclosed in the same commit with microcode update when
they were submitted to coreboot.git repository and for some cases they
may not have allowed redistribution in any form.
If you are a vendor planning to distribute system with pre-installed
coreboot, GPLv2 would dictate that sources and the toolchain need to be
available for download. The best solution would be to push to
coreboot.git, while the next best would be to host their own public
repository. This is where missing or incompatible licensing for files
files in coreboot.git may become a show-stopper.
Quoting from FSP review : http://review.coreboot.org/#/c/4016/
Ronald G. Minnich Nov 25 20:15
"And, in fact, vendors over time have shown us they are sensitive on
this issue. Keeping it (microcode) in cbfs removes their worries."
With this quote, I do not understand why you are against moving
microcodes to blobs.git. I also do not understand why you approved this
patch to be submitted to coreboot.git without the (required) microcode
More information about the coreboot