Hi, > have you tried omitting the `device lapic` line from the devicetree? I have tested this, in this case Linux shows only one processor core. Therefore the 'device lapic' line is really needed...
I can submit that Local APIC Fixup patch to gerrit but I'm not sure if this is really the best solution. Kind regards, Sumo On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 6:35 PM Nico Huber <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > have you tried omitting the `device lapic` line from the devicetree? > It would only matter if there is configuration associated with it, but > I can't see anything like that for `intel/harcuvar`. > > What happens is that this `device lapic` line in the devicetree becomes > an entry in a list at runtime. This list is later filled with the actual > cores present. If any of the actual cores has the same APIC id as given > in the devicetree, no additional entry is added for this core. However > if none of the actual cores has that id, the original entry is left > blindly in the list, causing coreboot to report the spurious, fifth > core. > > On 07.10.20 21:27, [email protected] wrote: > > Thank you so much Javier Galindo! > > > > Sorry for not finding this case myself ... > > I checked it on the motherboard with lapic #4 - everything works as it > should. > > Tomorrow I'll check it on the motherboard with lapic #0. > > I wish I could understand how this magic works :)! lapic 0xbeef ..... > > It's kind of a wildcard that gets replaced with the number found in the > hardware. Nothing too special but probably unnecessary. > > Nico > _______________________________________________ > coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
