Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/4] x86/microcode: Improve documentation and parsing for ucode=

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 17.01.2020 20:06, Eslam Elnikety wrote:
> On 20.12.19 10:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 19.12.2019 22:08, Eslam Elnikety wrote:
>>> On 18.12.19 12:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 18.12.2019 02:32, Eslam Elnikety wrote:
>>>>> Decouple the microcode referencing mechanism when using GRUB to that
>>>>> when using EFI. This allows us to avoid the "unspecified effect" of
>>>>> using `<integer> | scan` along xen.efi.
>>>>
>>>> I guess "unspecified effect" in the doc was pretty pointless - such
>>>> options have been ignored before; in fact ...
>>>>
>>>>> With that, Xen can explicitly
>>>>> ignore those named options when using EFI.
>>>>
>>>> ... I don't see things becoming any more explicit (not even parsing
>>>> the options was quite explicit to me).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree that those options have been ignored so far in the case of EFI.
>>> The documentation contradicts that however. The documentation:
>>> * says <integer> has unspecified effect.
>>> * does not mention anything about scan being ignored.
>>>
>>> With this patch, it is explicit in code and in documentation that both
>>> options are ignored in case of EFI.
>>
>> But isn't it rather that ucode=scan could (and hence perhaps should)
>> also have its value on EFI?
>>
> 
> I do not see "ucode=scan" applicable in anyway in the case of EFI. In 
> EFI, there are not "modules" to scan through, but rather the efi config 
> points exactly to the microcode blob.

What would be wrong with the EFI code to also inspect whatever has been
specified with ramdisk= if there was no ucode= ?

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel