Re: mpparse.c question

From: Maciej W. Rozycki (
Date: Fri Feb 02 2001 - 13:20:34 EST

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 07 2001 - 21:00:15 EST