The only thing you need to do is
processor.mpc_type = MP_PROCESSOR;
processor.mpc_apicid = id;
- processor.mpc_apicver = 0x10; /* TBD: lapic version */
+ processor.mpc_apicver = GET_APIC_VERSION(apic_read(APIC_LVR));
processor.mpc_cpuflag = (enabled ? CPU_ENABLED : 0);
processor.mpc_cpuflag |= (boot_cpu ? CPU_BOOTPROCESSOR : 0);
processor.mpc_cpufeature = (boot_cpu_data.x86 << 8) |
Jun
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Protasevich, Natalie [mailto:Natalie.Protasevich@UNISYS.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 11:55 AM
> To: 'Martin J. Bligh'; Nakajima, Jun; Protasevich, Natalie; Pallipadi,
> Venkatesh
> Cc: William Lee Irwin III; Christoph Hellwig; James Cleverdon; Linux
> Kernel
> Subject: RE: APIC version
>
>
> The thing is, this array never gets filled with correct values for XAPICs
> in
> case when we go through ACPI, not MP.
> I only care about it because that is how I used to distinguish Cascades
> from
> Fosters on ES7000 (which I need to do very early, before I get to APIC
> mode
> setup).
>
> On the other hand, I just noticed that I could go with smp_num_siblings
> for
> this purpose... so if this issue is too shady as of now, i will survive, I
> guess...:)
>
> --Natalie
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin J. Bligh [mailto:mbligh@aracnet.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 12:26 PM
> To: Nakajima, Jun; Protasevich, Natalie; Pallipadi, Venkatesh
> Cc: William Lee Irwin III; Christoph Hellwig; James Cleverdon; Linux
> Kernel
> Subject: RE: APIC version
>
>
> > The entries in acpi_version[] are indexed by the APIC id, not
> smp_processor_id(). So you can overwrite acpi_version[] for a different
> processor.
>
> >> + apic_version[smp_processor_id()] =
>
> Ugh.
>
> It's indexed by the apic ID, not the cpu id. They're not 1-1.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 22:00:47 EST