ACK: [PATCH] [v2] cpu: microcode: remove failures when kernel does not have newer version (LP: #1322534)
Colin Ian King
colin.king at canonical.com
Wed Jun 18 07:10:33 UTC 2014
On 17/06/14 20:04, Alex Hung wrote:
> New systems usually have new microcode than kernel does, and
> therefore reporting failures is not correct. This patch changes
> it to report skipped when kernel does not have microcode updates.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Hung <alex.hung at canonical.com>
> ---
> src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c | 7 ++-----
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c b/src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c
> index 016b938..4434275 100644
> --- a/src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c
> +++ b/src/cpu/microcode/microcode.c
> @@ -230,13 +230,10 @@ static int microcode_test1(fwts_framework *fw)
> }
>
> /*
> - * We found the old revision but not a
> - * new revsion, failed
> + * Kernel does not have newer version than BIOS
> */
> if (info->new_revision == UNKNOWN) {
> - failed++;
> - fwts_failed(fw, LOG_LEVEL_MEDIUM, "MicrocodeNotUpdated",
> - "The kernel did not report that CPU %d has had a microcode update. "
> + fwts_log_info(fw, "The kernel did not report that CPU %d has had a microcode update. "
> "The current firmware is revision 0x%x and probably has not been updated.",
> cpu, info->old_revision);
> continue;
>
Tested this out and it looks good to me
Acked-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king at canonical.com>
More information about the fwts-devel
mailing list