Subject: port-i386/35059:
To: None <port-i386-maintainer@netbsd.org, gnats-admin@netbsd.org,>
From: None <jdolecek@NetBSD.org>
List: netbsd-bugs
Date: 11/15/2006 18:00:01
>Number:         35059
>Category:       port-i386
>Synopsis:       
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       low
>Responsible:    port-i386-maintainer
>State:          open
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Wed Nov 15 18:00:00 +0000 2006
>Originator:     Jaromir Dolecek
>Release:        NetBSD 4.0_BETA
>Organization:
>Environment:
System: NetBSD home 3.99.15 NetBSD 3.99.15 (SARUMAN.MP) #6: Mon Sep 25 20:01:15 CEST 2006 dolecek@home:/usr/home/dolecek/soft/netbsd/sys/arch/i386/compile/SARUMAN.MP i386
Architecture: i386
Machine: i386
>Description:
	When computer boots, following CPU model information is displayed:
pu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor)
cpu0: Intel Pentium Pro, II or III (686-class), 1866.73 MHz, id 0x6f6
cpu0: unknown Core FSB_FREQ value 0 (0x41c80000)
cpu0: features bfebfbff<FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR>
cpu0: features bfebfbff<PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX>
cpu0: features bfebfbff<FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,SBF>
cpu0: features2 e3bd<SSE3,MONITOR,DS-CPL,VMX,EST,TM2,xTPR>
cpu0: "Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU          6300  @ 1.86GHz"
cpu0: I-cache 32 KB 64B/line 8-way, D-cache 32 KB 64B/line 8-way
cpu0: L2 cache 2 MB 64B/line 8-way
cpu0: using thermal monitor 1
est_init: unknown system bus clock

	Notice the messages about unknown FSB/system bus clock.

	Though it doesn't seem to actually have any adverse effect,
	it's still better if it would be detected properly.
	
>How-To-Repeat:
	Boot up with this particular Core 2 Duo CPU model
>Fix:
	According to:
	http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/chart/core2duo.htm

	the FSB value for this particular model is 667 Mhz, which
	means the p3_get_bus_clock() case for Core (model 0xe, 0xf)
	in identcpu.c should perhaps have a this:

                case 0:
                        bus_clock = 6666;
                        break;

	however, I have no idea if the above is correct, so I leave that
	to someone more familiar with the code in question.