[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080714183245.GC6986@asus>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:32:45 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
Cc: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: let 32bit use apic_ops too
[Maciej W. Rozycki - Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 07:24:15PM +0100]
| On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
|
| > Maciej, check me please (it's a bit shame but I don't understand the problem
| > that deep) - we have only two errata here 3AP and 11AP. 3AP says - "Writes to
| > error register clears register" so we don't care about locking there since
| > our mostly task is to read error number or clear it (well we're recommened
| > to write before read - but that is different and not related to the hw
| > error).
| >
| > The second problem - 11AP says the following: "Back to back assertions of
| > HOLD or BOFF# may cause lost APIC write cycle". For this case we use LOCK#
| > since - HOLD is not recognized during LOCK cycles (as Intel docs says).
| >
| > Did I miss something? Or maybe it's completely out-of-topic? :)
|
| Check the text of the 11AP erratum -- we simply use one of the Intel's
| recommended workarounds, which says that an APIC read instruction before
| every APIC write instruction will avoid the problem.
|
| Maciej
|
ok, thanks!
- Cyrill -
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists