In article <blpgjn$604$1@colwyn.zhadum.de>,
Matthias Scheler <tron@zhadum.de> wrote:
>In article <HM6Ito.xw@tac.nyc.ny.us>,
>	christos@zoulas.com (Christos Zoulas) writes:
>> You need MPACPI defined, because the second CPU is only defined in the
>> ACPI tables, and not the MPBIOS ones.
>
>Wouldn't it be better to define "MPACPI" by default? The number of
>NetBSD users with P4 HT system has or will very soon exceed the
>number of users with old dual motherboard where MPACPI is broken.

No, because there are a lot of systems that have broken ACPI tables
and our code does not handle that gracefully. It panics. I have some
patches that improve the situation, and I am waiting for Frank to
approve them.

>Before some complains:
>I do *not* suggest to remove "MPBIOS". The two options can coexists
>happily because MPACPI disables MPBIOS if it is able to attach.

Yes, but panics if it finds conflicting information after it attaches.


christos