From owner-freebsd-smp Thu Feb 7 10:14: 5 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from hpux38.dc.engr.scu.edu (hpux38.dc.engr.scu.edu [129.210.16.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3998537B41D for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:14:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (dclark@localhost) by hpux38.dc.engr.scu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g17IDsB25632; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:13:55 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 10:13:54 -0800 (PST) From: "Dorr H. Clark" To: Igor Lepechin Cc: freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Troubles with MP on ServerWorks NB6635 platform In-Reply-To: <15152039138.20020204175259@themoscowtimes.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Igor Lepechin wrote: > Feb 4 02:44:49 web /kernel: APIC_IO: Testing 8254 interrupt delivery > Feb 4 02:44:49 web /kernel: APIC_IO: Broken MP table detected: 8254 is not connected to IOAPIC #0 intpin 2 > Feb 4 02:44:49 web /kernel: APIC_IO: routing 8254 via 8259 and IOAPIC #0 intpin 0 > --------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I've seen this on a prototype board also, which didn't involve the ServerWorks chips. The system otherwise appeared to function although the testing was not extensive. Is it possible this is just an alarming tone for an otherwise acceptable code path? -dhc To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message