Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:39:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:39:44 -0500 Received: from delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl ([153.19.144.1]:56982 "EHLO delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:39:36 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 20:08:43 +0100 (MET) From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Alan Cox cc: Johannes Erdfelt , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.0test11-ac1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Organization: Technical University of Gdansk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Alan Cox wrote: > Quite a few dual pentium socket 7 boards report dual cpu and apic in the > MP table regardless of the capabilities of the CPU installed. Its apparently > legal to do so. There is an apic capability flag that should be tested before It's not legal -- the MPS is very explicit the MP-table must reflect a real configuration. > making any assumptions about APIC availability on a processor. OK, but how does it handle the 82489DX? There are valid configurations using this kind of APIC, including Pentium P54C ones... > And yes some boards crash otherwise. Hmm, the only solution I can see is to check the APIC version in the MP-table and only if an integrated version is reported then check capabilities. But can we trust the version reported given that amount of brokenness out there? Maciej -- + Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland + +--------------------------------------------------------------+ + e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available + - 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/