On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 01:33:40AM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 October 2006 18:24, Dave Jones wrote:
> > I've been chasing a bug that got filed against the Fedora kernel
> > a while back: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199052
> > This is a dual pentium pro from an era before we had ACPI, and
> > it seems to be falling foul of this test in smpboot.c ..
> >
> > if (!smp_found_config && !acpi_lapic) {
> > printk(KERN_NOTICE "SMP motherboard not detected.\n");
> >
> > My initial reaction is that the !acpi_lapic test should be conditional
> > on some variable that gets set if the ACPI parsing actually succeeded.
>
> acpi_lapic isn't related to the problem at hand -- that smp_found_config is
> not set.
Right, it just seemed odd to me when I was eyeballing this code.
> That said, allowing acpi_lapic=1 to bail out of this check has the sole
> function of allowing SMP/PIC configurations. (smp_found_config
> in ACPI mode is set if acpi_lapic and acpi_ioapic are set)
> SMP/PIC configurations are not very interesting, except for debugging.
> Indeed, MPS prohibits them by mandating an IOAPIC be present for SMP --
> but ACPI has no such rule.
Why smp_found_config isn't set in that guys configuration is a mystery to me,
as his MPS tables look sane..
MP Table:
# APIC ID Version State Family Model Step Flags
# 0 0x10 BSP, usable 6 2 1 0x0381
# 0 0x10 AP, usable 6 1 7 0xfbff
Hmm, wait, he has unpaired CPUs. I wonder if that's the reason.
I know *some* combinations of PPro's are valid to be paired, but I'll
need to dig out the old docs to be sure.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
