Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:28:25 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org 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 Message-ID: <200704231428.26118.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <86y7ko2n8b.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <200704191736.l3JHad0E057895@casselton.net> <86y7ko2n8b.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200704231428.26118.jhb>