On 17/01/2008, Alexander Graf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TeLeMan wrote:
env-cr[8] used by SVM codes was not defined.
As far as I remember cr8 is the very same as the TPR, so we only need to
implement one and map the other to the value we want.
I committed the original patch to avoid possible
On Jan 17, 2008, at 4:57 PM, Robert William Fuller wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
TeLeMan wrote:
env-cr[8] used by SVM codes was not defined.
As far as I remember cr8 is the very same as the TPR, so we only
need to
implement one and map the other to the value we want.
My approach was to use
TeLeMan wrote:
env-cr[8] used by SVM codes was not defined.
As far as I remember cr8 is the very same as the TPR, so we only need to
implement one and map the other to the value we want.
My approach was to use the TPR and route the cr8 accesses to the tpr.
Even though I have to admit that
Alexander Graf wrote:
TeLeMan wrote:
env-cr[8] used by SVM codes was not defined.
As far as I remember cr8 is the very same as the TPR, so we only need to
implement one and map the other to the value we want.
My approach was to use the TPR and route the cr8 accesses to the tpr.
Even though I
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 05:13:31PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
Their only difference is, that the TPR is implemented as an MSR, whereas
the CR8 is a CPU register.
The TPR is currently a memory mapped local Apic register. The
default address is 0xfee00080, according to Intel vol3a chapter 8...
