From owner-freebsd-smp Mon Sep 2 14:37:13 1996 Return-Path: owner-smp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA14121 for smp-outgoing; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 14:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA14114 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 14:37:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id OAA03128; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 14:36:26 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199609022136.OAA03128@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: SMP on Intel MG15 To: smp@csn.net (Steve Passe) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 14:36:26 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG, rv@groa.uct.ac.za, erich@uruk.org In-Reply-To: <199609022032.OAA06728@clem.systemsix.com> from "Steve Passe" at Sep 2, 96 02:32:17 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-smp@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > >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.