* [9fans] tech writer humor @ 2011-02-22 1:45 erik quanstrom 2011-02-22 17:53 ` ron minnich 2011-02-23 17:26 ` ron minnich 0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2011-02-22 1:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans ah yes, that clears it up 19.4.22 APICID This register uniquely identifies an APIC in the system. This register is not used by OS'es anymore and is still implemented in hardware because of FUD. (Intel® 5520 chipset and Intel® 5500 chipset datasheet pub 321328) - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] tech writer humor 2011-02-22 1:45 [9fans] tech writer humor erik quanstrom @ 2011-02-22 17:53 ` ron minnich 2011-02-22 18:22 ` erik quanstrom 2011-02-23 17:26 ` ron minnich 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: ron minnich @ 2011-02-22 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 5:45 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote: > ah yes, that clears it up > > 19.4.22 > APICID > This register uniquely identifies an APIC in the system. This register is not used by > OS'es anymore and is still implemented in hardware because of FUD. > > (Intel® 5520 chipset and Intel® 5500 chipset datasheet pub 321328) Did intel claim that the OSes should be using ACPI? What do they use instead? ron p.s. I appreciate the humor but it does lead to a serious question. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] tech writer humor 2011-02-22 17:53 ` ron minnich @ 2011-02-22 18:22 ` erik quanstrom 2011-02-22 19:20 ` erik quanstrom 2011-02-22 20:09 ` ron minnich 0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2011-02-22 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Tue Feb 22 12:57:18 EST 2011, rminnich@gmail.com wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 5:45 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote: > > ah yes, that clears it up > > > > 19.4.22 > > APICID > > This register uniquely identifies an APIC in the system. This register is not used by > > OS'es anymore and is still implemented in hardware because of FUD. > > > > (Intel® 5520 chipset and Intel® 5500 chipset datasheet pub 321328) > > Did intel claim that the OSes should be using ACPI? What do they use instead? > > ron > p.s. I appreciate the humor but it does lead to a serious question. afik, acpi has nothing to do with this problem. i believe this particular tech writer intends to claim that nobody uses physical addressing anymore. but i believe bios still needs to use physical addressing before logical addressing is established. so i think the writer may be speaking a misleading half of the whole story. - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] tech writer humor 2011-02-22 18:22 ` erik quanstrom @ 2011-02-22 19:20 ` erik quanstrom 2011-02-22 20:09 ` ron minnich 1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2011-02-22 19:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > > > 19.4.22 > > > APICID > > > This register uniquely identifies an APIC in the system. This register is not used by > > > OS'es anymore and is still implemented in hardware because of FUD. > > > > > > (Intel® 5520 chipset and Intel® 5500 chipset datasheet pub 321328) > > > > Did intel claim that the OSes should be using ACPI? What do they use instead? > > > > ron > > p.s. I appreciate the humor but it does lead to a serious question. > > afik, acpi has nothing to do with this problem. i believe this particular > tech writer intends to claim that nobody uses physical addressing anymore. > but i believe bios still needs to use physical addressing before logical addressing > is established. so i think the writer may be speaking a misleading half > of the whole story. i think i was unclear. by physical vs. logical addressing i mean of course of the various system apics, not of memory. in any event, the logical addressing is the responsibility of the os, so acpi doesn't provide it either. (annoying how acpi and apic obvious anagrams.) - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] tech writer humor 2011-02-22 18:22 ` erik quanstrom 2011-02-22 19:20 ` erik quanstrom @ 2011-02-22 20:09 ` ron minnich 2011-02-22 20:26 ` Devon H. O'Dell 2011-02-22 20:27 ` erik quanstrom 1 sibling, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: ron minnich @ 2011-02-22 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs let me ask the question again. I know what the difference between APIC and ACPI means. Why is it that they don't think anyone needs that register any more? What are they suggesting people use instead? ron ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] tech writer humor 2011-02-22 20:09 ` ron minnich @ 2011-02-22 20:26 ` Devon H. O'Dell 2011-02-22 20:27 ` erik quanstrom 1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Devon H. O'Dell @ 2011-02-22 20:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs 2011/2/22 ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>: > let me ask the question again. I know what the difference between APIC > and ACPI means. > > Why is it that they don't think anyone needs that register any more? > What are they suggesting people use instead? When I first read it, I thought it was funny. But then I realized it didn't make much sense and was likely written by someone who was confused by conflating multiple issues. Remember when the Pentium III came out with the serial number in the cpuid instruction and people went batshit insane because you could use it to track individual computers? I'm wondering if that has any bearing on this -- but it's almost exactly the opposite. It'd be insanely useful for software licensing but the outcry made it basically a useless instruction. I wonder if a tech writer saw a bunch of different stuff, did some googling, and confused him / herself to death. --dho > ron > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] tech writer humor 2011-02-22 20:09 ` ron minnich 2011-02-22 20:26 ` Devon H. O'Dell @ 2011-02-22 20:27 ` erik quanstrom 2011-02-22 20:46 ` Nemo 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2011-02-22 20:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Tue Feb 22 15:11:29 EST 2011, rminnich@gmail.com wrote: > let me ask the question again. I know what the difference between APIC > and ACPI means. i wasn't implying that you didn't. i was saying that i sometimes think one and say the other. > Why is it that they don't think anyone needs that register any more? > What are they suggesting people use instead? good question. as i said before, i have to chalk it up to hurried documentation. i'm quite sure apic ids are still important. - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] tech writer humor 2011-02-22 20:27 ` erik quanstrom @ 2011-02-22 20:46 ` Nemo 2011-02-22 20:47 ` Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) 2011-02-22 20:54 ` erik quanstrom 0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Nemo @ 2011-02-22 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs apic ids can be found in the madt table, from acpi, iirc. On Feb 22, 2011, at 9:27 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote: > On Tue Feb 22 15:11:29 EST 2011, rminnich@gmail.com wrote: >> let me ask the question again. I know what the difference between APIC >> and ACPI means. > > i wasn't implying that you didn't. i was saying that i sometimes > think one and say the other. > >> Why is it that they don't think anyone needs that register any more? >> What are they suggesting people use instead? > > good question. as i said before, i have to chalk it up to > hurried documentation. i'm quite sure apic ids are still > important. > > - erik > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] tech writer humor 2011-02-22 20:46 ` Nemo @ 2011-02-22 20:47 ` Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) 2011-02-22 20:54 ` erik quanstrom 1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) @ 2011-02-22 20:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > apic ids can be found in the madt table, from acpi, iirc. Heh. You assume a correct ACPI BIOS implementation. The worst offenders I've seen have been Intel-designed motherboards :-P ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] tech writer humor 2011-02-22 20:46 ` Nemo 2011-02-22 20:47 ` Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) @ 2011-02-22 20:54 ` erik quanstrom 2011-02-22 20:57 ` Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2011-02-22 20:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Tue Feb 22 15:48:01 EST 2011, lyndon@orthanc.ca wrote: > Heh. You assume a correct ACPI BIOS implementation. The worst > offenders I've seen have been Intel-designed motherboards :-P On Tue Feb 22 15:39:49 EST 2011, nemo.mbox@gmail.com wrote: > apic ids can be found in the madt table, from acpi, iirc. > neither of these comments apply to the registers in question. the registers in question are the running configuration of the i/o apic in the intel IOH-36D. the madt table or the mp tables reflect a snaphot of *all* the i/o apics and lapics in the system at the time when bios handed control over to the operating system (sic.). - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] tech writer humor 2011-02-22 20:54 ` erik quanstrom @ 2011-02-22 20:57 ` Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) 2011-02-22 21:02 ` erik quanstrom 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) @ 2011-02-22 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > the madt table or the mp tables reflect a snaphot of *all* > the i/o apics and lapics in the system at the time when bios handed > control over to the operating system (sic.). No it doesn't. That's the bug in the BIOS -- it screws up building the table. I have an Intel mini-ITX board sitting in a box because it's unuseable due to this bug. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] tech writer humor 2011-02-22 20:57 ` Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) @ 2011-02-22 21:02 ` erik quanstrom 2011-02-22 21:09 ` Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2011-02-22 21:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Tue Feb 22 15:58:12 EST 2011, lyndon@orthanc.ca wrote: > > the madt table or the mp tables reflect a snaphot of *all* > > the i/o apics and lapics in the system at the time when bios handed > > control over to the operating system (sic.). > > No it doesn't. That's the bug in the BIOS -- it screws up building > the table. I have an Intel mini-ITX board sitting in a box because > it's unuseable due to this bug. by definition, a bug in your bios doesn't change the specification, - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] tech writer humor 2011-02-22 21:02 ` erik quanstrom @ 2011-02-22 21:09 ` Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) @ 2011-02-22 21:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > by definition, a bug in your bios doesn't change the specification, True. But a "specification" that doesn't run the same way on any two models of motherboard isn't much of one. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] tech writer humor 2011-02-22 1:45 [9fans] tech writer humor erik quanstrom 2011-02-22 17:53 ` ron minnich @ 2011-02-23 17:26 ` ron minnich 1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: ron minnich @ 2011-02-23 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 5:45 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote: > ah yes, that clears it up > > 19.4.22 > APICID > This register uniquely identifies an APIC in the system. This register is not used by > OS'es anymore and is still implemented in hardware because of FUD. So, my interpretation following the discussions: some over-zealous hardware guy at Intel believes this register is no longer needed because the OS should use BIOS services. Any OS that does not use BIOS services is suffering from FUD, not a real need. I call bull****. The BIOS services work well enough, of course, on most mainboards. Intel mainboards, however, frequently screw the BIOS services and tables up, such that the OS either can not boot or needs to poke around the hardware and use, e.g., this register to find out what's really going on. I'm pretty sure that there is a qualifying instance of irony in here, though I'm relucant to say so since it's an overused term. It's another case of the Intel hardware designer disconnect from the Intel mainboard designers and, following that, Intel's occasional disconnect from reality ... I hit this all the time. (as do others; one person I know was told by Intel that the _MP_ table on his mainboard would get fixed only if the customer was willing to pay for it. Nice.) thanks ron ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-02-23 17:26 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-02-22 1:45 [9fans] tech writer humor erik quanstrom 2011-02-22 17:53 ` ron minnich 2011-02-22 18:22 ` erik quanstrom 2011-02-22 19:20 ` erik quanstrom 2011-02-22 20:09 ` ron minnich 2011-02-22 20:26 ` Devon H. O'Dell 2011-02-22 20:27 ` erik quanstrom 2011-02-22 20:46 ` Nemo 2011-02-22 20:47 ` Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) 2011-02-22 20:54 ` erik quanstrom 2011-02-22 20:57 ` Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) 2011-02-22 21:02 ` erik quanstrom 2011-02-22 21:09 ` Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) 2011-02-23 17:26 ` ron minnich
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).