From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751047AbVHLO51 (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Aug 2005 10:57:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751054AbVHLO51 (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Aug 2005 10:57:27 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:45774 "EHLO mx2.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751035AbVHLO50 (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Aug 2005 10:57:26 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:57:25 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Martin Wilck Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: APIC version and 8-bit APIC IDs Message-ID: <20050812145725.GD922@wotan.suse.de> References: <42FC8461.2040102@fujitsu-siemens.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <42FCA23C.7040601@fujitsu-siemens.com> <20050812133248.GN8974@wotan.suse.de> <42FCA97E.5010907@fujitsu-siemens.com> <42FCB86C.5040509@fujitsu-siemens.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42FCB86C.5040509@fujitsu-siemens.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:55:40PM +0200, Martin Wilck wrote: > I wrote: > > >>How so? The XAPIC version check should work there. > > > >ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x11] lapic_id[0x21] enabled) > >Processor #33 15:4 APIC version 16 > >ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x12] lapic_id[0x26] enabled) > >Processor #38 15:4 APIC version 16 > > Forget it. I have fallen prey to this line: > > processor.mpc_apicver = 0x10; /* TBD: lapic version */ > > in arch/x86_64/kernel/mpparse.c. > I am used to get correct answers from Linux :-) Heh. Should probably fix that. Can you file a bug with the ACPI people on http://bugzilla.kernel.org ? (or do a patch?) -Andi