Intel Software Defined Silicon, AMD HSMP Submitted For Linux 5.18

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Intel Software Defined Silicon, AMD HSMP Submitted For Linux 5.18

The x86 platform driver updates have been submitted for the Linux 5.18 kernel merge window. This pull request includes a number of notable additions we have been talking about over recent weeks and months on Phoronix...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-5.18-x86-Platform-Drivers

[Adarion]

Soo.... is this SDSi related to intels plans (or already actions?) to artificially limit chips and have antifeatures that you can "buy away" with money for firmware updates? Just wondering... But maybe I'm wrong and totally mistook this for something else.

[skeevy420]

Soo.... is this SDSi related to intels plans (or already actions?) to artificially limit chips and have antifeatures that you can "buy away" with money for firmware updates? Just wondering... But maybe I'm wrong and totally mistook this for something else.

Yes. Per Intel's own words:

Intel® Xeon® family processors with support for Intel® Software Defined Silicon (SDSi) allow the configuration of additional CPU features through a license activation process.

Documentation in this repo provides information about the OS interface used to communicate with SDSi hardware/firmware to perform CPU provisioning and other related tasks.

[Adarion]

Yes. Per Intel's own words:...

Ah, thanks for the confirmation. *sigh* Well. This is pretty sad.

[Ironmask]

So AMD submitted something useful while Intel submitted DRM. How poetic.

[DataSmasher]

At the risk of sounding naive, is it possible this could simplify the chip making process from a manufacturing perspective?

[Ironmask]

At the risk of sounding naive, is it possible this could simplify the chip making process from a manufacturing perspective?

Software Defined Silicon?
No, it doesn't change manufacturing at all. It's literally just taking a chip, locking down some features, and selling it at a lower price and expect the consumer to pay extra to fully unlock it. This isn't even new, actually, all chip makers who make multicore chips will check a batch of chips, and if even one chip in the batch has a faulty core, the entire batch has some cores disabled and they're sold cheaper as a different brand of chips, like a Phenom II X4 will be rebranded to a Phenom II X2, even if it has working cores, they're just disabled. Sometimes a manufacturer will intentionally just dumb down a working batch to meet market demands. That approach *does* make manufacturing easier, but it doesn't need to cost the consumer extra money. This is just taking that approach, but turning it into a DRM model by intentionally breaking their chips just to leech even more money off customers. It's completely, 100% unnecessary and it's just Intel desperately trying to employ vendor lock-in for their products in a world where AMD and ARM exist and are slowly whittling down their market.