[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#684569: linux-image-3.5-trunk-686-pae: microcode module loaded on Celeron CPU



user debian-eeepc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
usertags 684569 701
quit


Dear Ben,


thank you for your reply.

Tigran, Andi, you can read the whole thread under for #684569 [1]. It
would be great, if you could clarify the points below for me.


Am Samstag, den 11.08.2012, 13:23 +0100 schrieb Ben Hutchings:
> On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 12:24 +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> > Package: src:linux
> > Version: 3.5-1~experimental.1
> > Severity: normal
> > Control: user debian-eeepc-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
> > Control: usertags -1 701

I have no idea why the last two processing control commands were
rejected by the Debian BTS [2][3]. Hopefully it will work now.

> > testing Linux kernel 3.5-1~experimental.1 [1] from Debian experimental I
> > noticed that the module `microcode` is loaded which has according to
> > `/var/log/syslog` not been the case with Linux 3.2.y.
> [...]
> > So to summarize I think, this module should not be loaded automatically
> > for this Celeron processor, which is not need for operation.
> 
> This really depends on what operations you want to do, and how buggy the
> CPU microcode installed by the BIOS is.  If you care that much about it,
> you can blacklist it.

Understood. Although I do not understand from where the updated
microcode is fetched. The only way for desktop users were BIOS upgrades
if I remember correctly. Linux does not ship the microcode, does not it.

So I do not see what purpose this module has for desktop users.

> > Commit 78ff123b [1]
> > 
> >         commit 78ff123b05fb15beb1ad670372eea0d299d0b8af
> >         Author: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
> >         Date:   Thu Jan 26 00:09:13 2012 +0100
> > 
> > is likely the one introducing this behavior.
> > 
> >         $ git describe 78ff123b05fb15beb1ad670372eea0d299d0b8af
> >         v3.3-rc1-38-g78ff123
> 
> I think that should actually be backported to wheezy, as I meant to
> apply all the CPU auto-loading patches.

I never thought that this would be the outcome of my report. ;-)


Thanks,

Paul


[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=684569
[2] http://wiki.debian.org/bugs.debian.org/usertags
[3] http://www.donarmstrong.com/posts/control_at_submit/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: