From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53614)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <gsomlo@gmail.com>) id 1WJbUk-0005G6-1f
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 23:25:58 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <gsomlo@gmail.com>) id 1WJbUb-0003Lh-KJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 23:25:49 -0500
Received: from mail-qa0-x22c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22c]:42785)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <gsomlo@gmail.com>) id 1WJbUb-0003La-FO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 23:25:41 -0500
Received: by mail-qa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id f11so1553272qae.3
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 20:25:41 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 23:25:33 -0500
From: "Gabriel L. Somlo" <gsomlo@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140301042533.GA24140@crash.ini.cmu.edu>
References: <20140228191425.GK17184@ERROL.INI.CMU.EDU>
	<FDFC5CCC-1D0E-49A7-9C97-E2C3A6E93156@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <FDFC5CCC-1D0E-49A7-9C97-E2C3A6E93156@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu: x86: report lapic version as 0x14
	instead of 0x11
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Cc: "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, "mst@redhat.com" <mst@redhat.com>

On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 11:44:33AM +0800, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Deja vu :). Should we really set this to thd least compatible version or rather to a current one that resembles roughly what we support? Otherwise patches like this will come up for every new osx release.
> 
> What is the version in Haswell?

I don't know specifically about Haswell, but OS X has been checking
for lapic_version >= 14 ever since 10.5, same check, same number.

The latest Intel manual I could find (Feb.2014) says (Vol 3A, page 10-11)
that the version is contained in bits 0-8 of the version register, and
that values are 0x00 for the 82489 discrete apic, and 0x10 - 0x15 for
integrated apic, all other values are reserved.

So I guess we could make it 0x15 and be done with it for a (hopefully)
long time :)

--Gabriel