> > 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.
Intel tell me otherwise. The real world also disagrees which makes the
discussion a little pointless. We have to handle the real situation where
this occurs
> > 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...
These processors don't report the APIC on the cpuid ? If so then I guess
the fix is something like this
if( cpuid says there is no local apic && vendor != intel)
Intel stuff appears to always be happy poking in APIC space. I don't know
if this is related to the chip internals on the non APIC capable chips.
Alan
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 23 2000 - 21:00:22 EST