On Monday 13 August 2007 07:40, Yinghai Lu wrote: > maybe for intel x86_64, it is hard to make kernel with numa enabled > with acpi=off. You would need to write an k8topology.c equivalent for that hardware. But fortunately it's not needed because they don't have any ACPI less bios. > but for amd k8 based system (even for later ...), it is rather simple > and clear Sorry I disagree. Most of your APIC patches are neither simple nor clear and they're all quite risky and likely to break other systems. The big problem with k8topology.c is that it cannot do its work on its own, but needs it to do partly doing CPU setup too. That means it cannot just set up state once, but keeps state continually changing. That makes it quite messy. > also we can use that as good debug feature... it is good to verify > system/hw/bios could work with kernel (acpi=off). So other os without > acpi support or with broken acpi support still can work... Debug features are ok if they're simple and don't impact the code much, but that's not the case here. Also more and more systems don't work without ACPI for other reasons so it's not very useful. Also typically modern hardware doesn't have a mptable so you couldn't use more than one CPU. -Andi (who sometimes feels LinuxBIOS is more a AntiLinuxBIOS if it requires such hacks) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
