I am currently used a product, an embedded industrial PC, made by Advantech and it is the ARK-1550-S9A1E. It is using the Intel® Core™ i5-4300U Processor and there is an issue I am running into with this specific processor.
With regard to the issue, there is a errata published which contains two changes:
For both of the above issues, it says that the workaround is "It is possible for the BIOS to contain a workaround for this erratum", so I contacted Advantech and they sent me a new BIOS and release notes for this. The release notes are not useful at all. The only thing they state is: "System BIOS and full SKU ME". Which says nothing about what was actually done or what was improved or changed.
Since the download links to the errata/specification on Intel website have been removed, I have placed the errata here (as well as attached the files):
Additionally, I have put the entire BIOS UEFI menu structure here (as well as attached):
The BIOS version and compliance information is the following:
BIOS Information BIOS Vendor...........American Megatrends Core Version..........188.8.131.52 0.32 x64 Compliancy............UEFI 2.3.1; PI 1.2 Project Version.......ARK C500X015 Build Date and Time...06/11/2019 12:05:22
Simply put, how can I determine if the specified workaround exists in the BIOS version that I have?
The response I got back from the manufacturer of this device, Advantech was the following:
After confirming with our R&D team, there is no current workarounds for those Errata. They suggested to try the following settings to see if this makes any difference.
1. BIOS->Advanced->CPU Configuration->EIST (Enable)->Disable
2. BIOS->Advanced->CPU Configuration->CPU C states (Enable)->Disable
3. BIOS->Advanced->ACPI Setting->Enable Hibernation (Enable)->Disable
4. BIOS->Advanced->ACPI Setting->ACPI Sleep State->Suspend Disable
They say that a BIOS workaround that is specified by Intel in the errata does NOT exist. I have made the changes in BIOS settings and I've also attached the visual view of the BIOS in PDF format.
I think now a way to know if this worked, is to give it time for testing. I will follow up once I make more progress with testing.