Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 2 Sep 1996 14:36:26 -0700 (MST)
From:      Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
To:        smp@csn.net (Steve Passe)
Cc:        terry@lambert.org, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG, rv@groa.uct.ac.za, erich@uruk.org
Subject:   Re: SMP on Intel MG15
Message-ID:  <199609022136.OAA03128@phaeton.artisoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <199609022032.OAA06728@clem.systemsix.com> from "Steve Passe" at Sep 2, 96 02:32:17 pm

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >I derive this implication from the phrase "is used with systems based
> >on version 1.x or higher of the local APIC".  It's a pretty clear
> >indicator that local APIC's, version 1.x or higher, *must* honor the
> >STARTUP IPI.
> >
> >This leaves me believing that your board is 1.4 but *not* 1.1 compliant.
> 
> as I mentioned, above, we set the conformance back to version 1.1 to avoid
> this complication.  But I don't see anything in 1.4 that would prohibit
> the same course of action.  perhaps I'm not hereing you correctly?

I think the 1.1 specification expressly leaves the behavior of the
"INIT IPI With Warm Reset" method *undefined* for anything other
than an 82489DX APIC.

The 1.4 (apparently, from what has been quoted here) defines the behaviour,
but doesn't define how to tell the difference.

The evil motherboard that has the problems doesn't have an 82489DX, right?
And it is running a local APIC of version 1.x or higher, right?

In 1.1 compliant mode, I would expect the STARTUP IPI method to work
on the board, without any change to the Warm Reset vector, or use of
the INIT IPI.  Clearly this fails.

I might be misunderstanding the 1.1 specification, but I don't think
so.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609022136.OAA03128>