[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: mpparse.c question
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> (hm, dont we have an assert in there to catch ISA IRQs bound to the second
> IO-APIC?) In any case, it would be a very surprising move if anyone added
> a second IO-APIC for the sake of *ISA* devices. This would be truly
> backwards.

It's just the matter of the order I/O APICs are listed in the MP table.
I think it's only the limited number of multiple-I/O APIC systems
available so far that prevented from a reverse listing to happen. Given
recent developments which lead to more such systems (e.g. using the
infamous ServerWorks chipset which embeds two I/O APICs internally), it's
only the matter of time until this happens, I'm afraid.

No need to hurry, though -- we might fix the problem once (if) it

+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+ e-mail:, PGP key available +

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.049 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site