[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071230162853.GA32453@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:28:53 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>, dpreed@...d.com,
Islam Amer <pharon@...il.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, hpa@...or.com,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: provide a DMI based port 0x80 I/O delay override
* Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> > > The i8259 driver uses it and it is known to be needed on some old
> > > chipsets. But it doesn't really have any "own" ports to use afaik.
> >
> > we'll solve that via an i8259-specific quirk. That is a lot cleaner
> > and maintainable than the current generic, always-enabled "opt out"
> > port-0x80 quirk.
>
> You mean using pci quirks + udelay? Will be probably challenging to
> collect PCI-IDs for that. And there might be old systems needing it
> without PCI. They likely won't have DMI either.
>
> In theory you could make it a DMI year cut off of course (and assume
> old if no DMI, although that happens occasionally with new systems
> too); but that is generally considered ugly.
>
> I don't think it's a big problem to keep delays of some form by
> default in 8259 -- people who care about performance should be
> definitely using APIC mode instead.
do you remember which old systems/chipsets were affected by this
problem? We had many - meanwhile fixed - PIC related problems, maybe
it's a red herring and the delay just papered it over.
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