Home » Mailing list archives » linux-kernel » 2008 » May » 28

[X86] Fix up silly i1586 boot message.

Previous thread: Kbuild changes since 2.6.21?? by Doug Reiland on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 12:23 pm. (3 messages)

Next thread: iTCO watchdog timer broken for Intel 3100 chipset by Chris Friesen on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 1:17 pm. (1 message)
[view original message]
From: Dave Jones <davej@...>
To: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Subject: [X86] Fix up silly i1586 boot message.
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 12:57 pm

Trying to boot a 64-bit kernel on a 32bit Pentium 4 gets

you an amusing message along the lines of.

"you need an x86-64, but you only have an i1586"

due to the P4 being family F.  Munge it to be 686.


Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>


diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/cpu.c b/arch/x86/boot/cpu.c

index 00e19ed..882c839 100644

--- a/arch/x86/boot/cpu.c

+++ b/arch/x86/boot/cpu.c

@@ -28,6 +28,8 @@ static char *cpu_name(int level)

 	if (level == 64) {

 		return "x86-64";

 	} else {

+		if (level == 15)

+			level = 6;

 		sprintf(buf, "i%d86", level);

 		return buf;

 	}


--

http://www.codemonkey.org.uk

--
[view original message]
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Subject: Re: [X86] Fix up silly i1586 boot message.
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 1:48 pm

What is wrong with it? If i386, 486, 586 and 686 are valid names,

why should not 786 (or rather 1586... since someone thought it

would be cool to jump the number^1) be?


[^1 Which also is interesting because the original number had an 80

prepended, i.e. 80286, 80586,... and you'd guess what number 1586

would map to.]

--
[view original message]
From: Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@...>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Subject: Re: [X86] Fix up silly i1586 boot message.
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 1:53 pm

Pardon my ignorance -- is there anything special about the number 801586?

It might be fun to display the family in hexadecimal though -- if86 or

80F86. ;)


  Maciej

--
[view original message]
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>
To: Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@...>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Subject: Re: [X86] Fix up silly i1586 boot message.
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 2:02 pm

--
[view original message]
From: Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@...>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Subject: Re: [X86] Fix up silly i1586 boot message.
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 2:25 pm

Hmm, 801586 should be fine as with Intel 80 used to stand for

microprocessors and 81586 would be confusing as I think 81 was used for

RAM devices (82 stood for peripherals, BTW).  My vote is for 80F86 though,

with "F" standing for "fast" as in the 74 TTL series. ;)


  Maciej

--
[view original message]
From: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>
To: Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@...>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>, Dave Jones <davej@...>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Subject: Re: [X86] Fix up silly i1586 boot message.
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 3:30 pm

uname reports i686 on these chips.  The rest is ridiculous.


	-hpa

--
[view original message]
From: Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@...>
To: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>, Dave Jones <davej@...>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Subject: Re: [X86] Fix up silly i1586 boot message.
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 8:10 pm

Intel started it first with picking up a ridiculous number for the family

ID for the P4 line.  There is no technical justification for not keeping

these numbers consecutive.  Or keeping it at 6 actually if the P4 is meant

to be seen by software as the Pentium Pro and the rest of the P6 gang.


  Maciej

--
[view original message]
From: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>
To: Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@...>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>, Dave Jones <davej@...>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Subject: Re: [X86] Fix up silly i1586 boot message.
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 8:13 pm

Yes, this is what we eventually ended up doing as causing fewest

compatibility problems.  For the message in question, it's better to be

consistent with uname.


	-hpa

--
[view original message]
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>
To: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>
Cc: Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@...>, Dave Jones <davej@...>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Subject: Re: [X86] Fix up silly i1586 boot message.
Date: Thursday, May 29, 2008 - 5:35 am

Then again, should not all of the i?86 names be collapsed,

much like there is only "sparc" and "sparc64" for

the actual sparcv7, sparcv8, sparcv9, sparcv9a pseudo-arches

used in, for example rpm, etc.

--
[view original message]
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@...>, Dave Jones <davej@...>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Subject: Re: [X86] Fix up silly i1586 boot message.
Date: Friday, May 30, 2008 - 4:30 pm

They should, but it is too late for that now.


--

(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

--
[view original message]
From: Dave Jones <davej@...>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Subject: Re: [X86] Fix up silly i1586 boot message.
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 1:59 pm

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 07:48:03PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

 >

 > On Wednesday 2008-05-28 18:57, Dave Jones wrote:

 >

 > >Trying to boot a 64-bit kernel on a 32bit Pentium 4 gets

 > >you an amusing message along the lines of.

 > >"you need an x86-64, but you only have an i1586"

 > >due to the P4 being family F.  Munge it to be 686.

 >

 > What is wrong with it? If i386, 486, 586 and 686 are valid names,

 > why should not 786 (or rather 1586... since someone thought it

 > would be cool to jump the number^1) be?


When you find the Intel literature that refers to the '786' or the '1586',

feel free to send a patch. In the meantime, we'll refer to it as

the rest of the world does.


	Dave


--

http://www.codemonkey.org.uk

--
[view original message]
From: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...>, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Subject: Re: [X86] Fix up silly i1586 boot message.
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 2:11 pm

Actually, I have seen some Intel literature talking about the 786.  This

was back when the 486 was new, and they wanted to impress how advanced

their roadmap was.  Needless to say, it was completely bogus.


	-hpa

--
[view original message]
From: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Subject: Re: [X86] Fix up silly i1586 boot message.
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 1:34 pm

Merged; however, if you could in the future use x86: instead of [X86] as

the prefix, it would save us having to edit it manually.


	-hpa

--
[view original message]
From: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Subject: Re: [X86] Fix up silly i1586 boot message.
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 1:31 pm

LOL.  Merged.


	-hpa

--
Previous thread: Kbuild changes since 2.6.21?? by Doug Reiland on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 12:23 pm. (3 messages)

Next thread: iTCO watchdog timer broken for Intel 3100 chipset by Chris Friesen on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 - 1:17 pm. (1 message)