Re: [arch-dev-public] Changes to microcode updates

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



On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Mike Cloaked <mike.cloaked@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

 Am 23.10.2014 um 21:58 schrieb Mike Cloaked:
 > Oct 23 15:41:56 localhost kernel: CPU0 microcode updated early to
 revision
 > 0x1b, date = 2014-05-29
 >
> Does this mean that the quoted early update has used the wrong file from
 an
> earlier date than current, or does this journal log line confirm correct
 > early loading of the up-to-date microcode?

This is the timestamp that marks Intel's internal version. This is what
 I get:

 [    0.000000] lije kernel: CPU0 microcode updated early to revision
 0x1c, date = 2014-07-03



On a second machine (a Haswell laptop) I get:

Oct 23 15:16:38 localhost kernel: CPU0 microcode updated early to revision
0x1c, date = 2014-07-03

which might suggest that mine has the same CPU as yours, so that this is indeed the latest internal version date for the microcode - (which makes me
feel a little easier seeing you get the same as me!)


Is anyone only having one core updated?  I get this:
> dmesg | grep microcode
[ 0.000000] CPU0 microcode updated early to revision 0x29, date = 2013-06-12
[    0.344194] microcode: CPU0 sig=0x206a7, pf=0x10, revision=0x29
[    0.344203] microcode: CPU1 sig=0x206a7, pf=0x10, revision=0x28
[ 0.344260] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 <tigran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Oruba

I checked dmesg and I can find no error messages.

--
Jody


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux