On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:25:14AM +0100, Magnus Christensson wrote:
--- a/src/acpi.c +++ b/src/acpi.c @@ -464,10 +464,12 @@ build_ssdt(void) // build processor scope header *(ssdt_ptr++) = 0x10; // ScopeOp if (cpu_length<= 0x3e) {
/* Handle 1-4 CPUs with one byte encoding */ *(ssdt_ptr++) = cpu_length + 1; } else {
*(ssdt_ptr++) = 0x7F;*(ssdt_ptr++) = (cpu_length + 2)>> 6;
/* Handle 5-314 CPUs with two byte encoding */*(ssdt_ptr++) = 0x40 | ((cpu_length + 1)& 0xf);*(ssdt_ptr++) = (cpu_length + 1)>> 4;Should be cpu_length + 2 as far as I can tell. The current code is definitely broken.
Right. That should be cpu_length +2 in the else-part.
Can you resend the patch with the change?
Thanks, -Kevin
On 12/24/2009 01:29 AM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:25:14AM +0100, Magnus Christensson wrote:
--- a/src/acpi.c +++ b/src/acpi.c @@ -464,10 +464,12 @@ build_ssdt(void) // build processor scope header *(ssdt_ptr++) = 0x10; // ScopeOp if (cpu_length<= 0x3e) {
/* Handle 1-4 CPUs with one byte encoding */ *(ssdt_ptr++) = cpu_length + 1; } else {
*(ssdt_ptr++) = 0x7F;*(ssdt_ptr++) = (cpu_length + 2)>> 6;
/* Handle 5-314 CPUs with two byte encoding */*(ssdt_ptr++) = 0x40 | ((cpu_length + 1)& 0xf);*(ssdt_ptr++) = (cpu_length + 1)>> 4;Should be cpu_length + 2 as far as I can tell. The current code is definitely broken.
Right. That should be cpu_length +2 in the else-part.
Can you resend the patch with the change?
Attached (sorry for the delay).
M.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:10:41AM +0100, Magnus Christensson wrote:
On 12/24/2009 01:29 AM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:25:14AM +0100, Magnus Christensson wrote:
Should be cpu_length + 2 as far as I can tell. The current code is definitely broken.
Right. That should be cpu_length +2 in the else-part.
Can you resend the patch with the change?
Attached (sorry for the delay).
Thanks. Commit 3012af18. -Kevin
On 01/12/2010 03:36 PM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:10:41AM +0100, Magnus Christensson wrote:
On 12/24/2009 01:29 AM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:25:14AM +0100, Magnus Christensson wrote:
Should be cpu_length + 2 as far as I can tell. The current code is definitely broken.
Right. That should be cpu_length +2 in the else-part.
Can you resend the patch with the change?
Attached (sorry for the delay).
Thanks. Commit 3012af18.
Without this patch, Windows 2008 r2 won't boot with more than 4 cpus. Kevin/Anthony, can you coordinate a SeaBIOS release including this patch?
Probably needed for qemu 0.12 as well.
On 02/08/2010 04:19 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/12/2010 03:36 PM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:10:41AM +0100, Magnus Christensson wrote:
On 12/24/2009 01:29 AM, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:25:14AM +0100, Magnus Christensson wrote:
Should be cpu_length + 2 as far as I can tell. The current code is definitely broken.
Right. That should be cpu_length +2 in the else-part.
Can you resend the patch with the change?
Attached (sorry for the delay).
Thanks. Commit 3012af18.
Without this patch, Windows 2008 r2 won't boot with more than 4 cpus. Kevin/Anthony, can you coordinate a SeaBIOS release including this patch?
Probably needed for qemu 0.12 as well.
Kevin,
Just let me know when you cut a new release. Did we ever decide what to do about a stable branch?
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 11:15:03AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 02/08/2010 04:19 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
Without this patch, Windows 2008 r2 won't boot with more than 4 cpus. Kevin/Anthony, can you coordinate a SeaBIOS release including this patch?
Probably needed for qemu 0.12 as well.
Kevin,
Just let me know when you cut a new release. Did we ever decide what to do about a stable branch?
I created the branch "0.5.1-stable" and cherry-picked 2d3f0f5e and 3012af18. I'll tag a release (and update the build version) if you're happy with just those two changes.
-Kevin
-
Anthony Liguori -
Avi Kivity -
Kevin O'Connor -
Magnus Christensson