From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <394b2f13cc163a3e7c74d0a41751fc3a@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:59:44 -0500
From: jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] EPIA dual-processor motherboard runs Plan 9
In-Reply-To: <43B6A797.50108@lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: cbf947ba-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Sat Dec 31 10:48:44 EST 2005, rminnich@lanl.gov wrote:
> Richard Miller wrote:
> ...
> > mtrrvar1: i6: 1BE00000 0
> > mtrrvar1: i7: FFFE00800 0
> 
> var -- as in "variable sized address space" MTRRs.
> 
> These are familiar values, to me as well. I have not looked them up, but 
> they sure sound like values I am used to. I don't think you need to worry.
> 
> ron

the concern here is that the mttr values are different
on the 2 processors so they are seeing different memory
attributes for those ranges (the warning messages are
only printed if there is an inconsistency).

depends what's mapped at those addresses. i7 is likely
an apic or somesuch and shouldn't be a problem. i6 is
just below 512MB physical and might be a problem depending
on how much memory is in the machine; the e820 map
would be useful here, maybe it's some acpi thing.

"fixing" the mttrs as in making them consistent would be
a pain.

--jim