From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Apr 23 18:44:17 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94C0F16A400
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:44:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org)
Received: from server.baldwin.cx (66-23-211-162.clients.speedfactory.net
	[66.23.211.162])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42F4F13C4AE
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:44:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org)
Received: from localhost.corp.yahoo.com (john@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l3NIVMh9049442;
	Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:31:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org)
From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:28:25 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
References: <200704191736.l3JHad0E057895@casselton.net>
	<86y7ko2n8b.fsf@dwp.des.no>
In-Reply-To: <86y7ko2n8b.fsf@dwp.des.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200704231428.26118.jhb@freebsd.org>
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by
	milter-greylist-2.0.2 (server.baldwin.cx [127.0.0.1]);
	Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:31:33 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.3/3151/Mon Apr 23 12:11:26 2007 on
	server.baldwin.cx
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 
	autolearn=ham version=3.1.3
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on server.baldwin.cx
Cc: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>,
	Mark Tinguely <tinguely@casselton.net>,
	freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, MTaylor@bytecraft.com.au
Subject: Re: IBM / FreeBSD Install problem
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:44:17 -0000

On Thursday 19 April 2007 03:11:32 pm Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote:
> Mark Tinguely <tinguely@casselton.net> writes:
> > I suggested that in email too, but looking closer, I think the MAXCPU
> > needs to be increased because the cpu number uses the apic_id. Or could
> > that be changed with a logical CPU to APIC ID lookup?
> >
> > Isn't the APIC IDs programmable? not that I am suggesting that, I
> > can think of headaches of all the places (like interrupt tables)
> > where it needs to be changed, not to mention the worry that the
> > lower APIC IDs were assigned to IOAPICs.
>=20
> I don't know, you'd have to ask jhb@ about the details.

APIC IDs are not programmable (well, they are on I/O APICs, but not local=20
APICs).  However, I am working on patches to support all valid APIC IDs for=
=20
both mptable and MADT.  Bumping up NLAPICS as a temporary workaround should=
=20
suffice for now.

=2D-=20
John Baldwin