Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:44:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:44:37 -0500 Received: from neon-gw.transmeta.com ([209.10.217.66]:36882 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:44:26 -0500 Message-ID: <3A818939.5BD3B740@transmeta.com> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 09:43:21 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Organization: Transmeta Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.0 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, sv, no, da, es, fr, ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mikael Pettersson CC: Petr Vandrovec , mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: UP APIC reenabling vs. cpu type detection ordering In-Reply-To: <20010207135824.A24476@vana.vc.cvut.cz> <3A817F68.1A5C4EC1@transmeta.com> <14977.34686.377279.606313@harpo.it.uu.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mikael Pettersson wrote: > > > In other words, I'd like to see a reason for making any vendor-specific > > determinations, and if so, they should ideally be centralized to the CPU > > feature-determination code. > > The Pentium 4 has a local APIC. It's not 100% compatible with the P6, and > you sometimes have to know which one you're poking. CPUID returns the > APIC feature bit. Should we mask its APIC capability? Of course not. > What's so "of course" about it? It mostly depends on how ugly the determination is. -hpa -- at work, in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/