On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 06:30:45PM +0000, Peter O'Kane wrote:
> This was a deduction from the observed behavior, i.e. everything worked in 
> the single physical processor case (with/without HTT enabled) and was 
> independent of which single physical processor was enabled. therefore it 
> must be something to do with the not fully fired up second physical 
> processor. Abstract question: Does it make sense to specify "processor 
> executing at lowest priority" along with a physical address specifying only 
> one processor? Answer: Probably not. Experiment: Change the definitions to 
> make certain fixed rather than low priority is used.
> Result: It boots on the RX300. I have done a kernel build with all 4 
> processors running with no problems.

Yeah, good thinking. I'm going to change the code to use fixed, since we
only send interrupts to one CPU anyway. In a way, the code may just have
been lucky because the BIOS always set up things in a way that allowed
it to work.

- Frank