Details
- Reviewers
lwhsu jrm - Commits
- R9:7d1e32e51386: FAQ: follow microcode package rename
Diff Detail
- Repository
- R9 FreeBSD doc repository
- Lint
Lint Not Applicable - Unit
Tests Not Applicable
Event Timeline
Since we have cpu-microcode ports for both AMD and Intel, should we remove Intel(R)?
| documentation/content/en/books/faq/_index.adoc | ||
|---|---|---|
| 628 | ||
| documentation/content/en/books/faq/_index.adoc | ||
|---|---|---|
| 628 | Or maybe "AMD and Intel CPU microcode updates"? | |
| documentation/content/en/books/faq/_index.adoc | ||
|---|---|---|
| 628 | Depends on if we want to add other CPU vendors in the future. :-) | |
| documentation/content/en/books/faq/_index.adoc | ||
|---|---|---|
| 628 | That makes sense since we don't want to mislead those with CPUs from other manufacturers. | |
Some other points to consider.
- For those with Intel CPUs, there are advantages to loading the microcode earlier.
- We could instruct users to install the port for their vendor, rather than the meta port that pulls in microcode for both vendors.
It will be key to find the appropriate balance between simple and precise. If you think this information is helpful, I can add it.
| documentation/content/en/books/faq/_index.adoc | ||
|---|---|---|
| 628 | @lwhsu I don't think we want to keep extending this list if/when that happens as it would get too awkward, but for now I think listing AMD and Intel makes sense. If we do add a third vendor we should probably extend this with a description of the individual cpu-microcode-<vendor> ports anyhow. | |
We could instruct users to install the port for their vendor, rather than the meta port that pulls in microcode for both vendors.
Yeah, we probably should have more extensive documentation on microcode and early loading, although it might go beyond a FAQ entry then -- maybe a separate article that's referenced from here?