[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071217215658.GA4782@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:56:59 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"David P. Reed" <dpreed@...d.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Paul Rolland <rol@...917.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
rol@...be.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: provide a DMI based port 0x80 I/O delay override.
* Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com> wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
>>
>> hm, i see this as a step backwards from the pretty flexible patch
>> that David already tested. (and which also passed a few hundred
>> bootup tests on my x86 test-grid)
>
> Please see Alan's comment that udelay (and none) shouldn't yet be
> provided as a choice. It opens race windows in drivers even when it
> works in practice on most setups. The version with "udelay" and "none"
> is not minimal, not low risk and certainly not .24 material.
huh? By default we still use port 0x80. Any udelay is non-default and
needs the user to explicitly switch to it. But it enables us to debug
any suspected drivers by asking testers to: "please try this driver with
io_delay=udelay, does it still work fine?". So those extra options are
quite sensible. If you have any real technical arguments against that
then please let us know.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists