[LinuxBIOS] x86_64: apic id lift patch

yhlu yinghailu at gmail.com
Wed Nov 23 18:19:59 CET 2005

sth about SRAT in LinuxBIOS,  I have put SRAT dynamically support in
LinuxBIOS, but the whole acpi support still need dsdt, current we only have
dsdt for AMD chipset in LB. And we can not have the access the dsdt asl from
Nvidia chipset yet...


On 11/23/05, Ronald G Minnich <rminnich at lanl.gov> wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Please note there is a high barrier of entry for any kind of BIOS
> workarounds -
> > in particular for LinuxBIOS i'm not very motivated because you guys can
> > just fix the BIOS.
> Hi Andi, just wanted to let you know, that I do agree that this is a
> good policy in general. In terms of LinuxBIOS, now that we're starting
> to approach 2M nodes out in the field, fixing it is geting a wee bit
> harder. Again, I'm not disagreeing with the point above, just mentioning
> that "just fix the BIOS" is not as easy as it was when we had all the
> LinuxBIOS nodes in the world -- all 13 of them -- in my lab :-)
> This APIC lifting thing has been a real mess, and IIRC what really
> pushed it originally was the island aruma, with its 32 PCI busses. It's
> amazing how PC architectures always seem to involve over-running
> bit-fields -- 4 bits, 6 bits, 8 bits, 10 bits, whatever.
> Getting it all to work has involved lots of backtracking, as we found
> that fixing this problem HERE broke that legacy system THERE -- where
> legacy seems to mean "more than 3 weeks old". The mail traffic on the
> linuxbios list on this issue has been interesting, and in some cases,
> more than I can keep up with. Part of the issue is that we all have
> mutually exclusive hardware, and we keep running into hardware
> limitations that don't seem to be known to even the guys who make the
> chips. So we think we have the permanent fix, and somebody pops up to
> report we just broke their mainboard -- and they're the only ones with
> that mainboard, so testing is hard.
> At the same time, we seem to be treading in territory where the fuctory
> BIOSes have not yet been. We're in the weird position, at times, of
> finding things out before the proprietary BIOSes get there.
> Sometimes the ease of updating the BIOS can cause troubles you don't
> expect. Fuctory BIOSes seem to count on infrequent updates, forked code
> bases, and so on, so that you have to update each mainboard source base
> individually -- they have the disadvantage of a forked code base, but
> the one advantage is that a mod to fix one platform won't ever break
> another.
> At some point I had understood that linux was going to be able to
> function without resorting to SRAT tables -- has that changed? Is this
> patch really intrusive enough that it is not acceptable? The issue is
> that we get LinuxBIOS right on a platform, and then some new rev of the
> CPU comes along, and LinuxBIOS gets updated in a way that is not
> obviously going to cause trouble for the older stuff -- but then it
> does, for some other reason. I am hoping this apic lifting will settle
> down in the next while, but it's been hard.
> thanks
> ron
> --
> LinuxBIOS mailing list
> LinuxBIOS at openbios.org
> http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20051123/1e3716ed/attachment.html>

More information about the coreboot mailing list