[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1J92JB-00013N-P3@be1.7eggert.dyndns.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:50:45 +0100
From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>, dpreed@...d.com,
Islam Amer <pharon@...il.com>, hpa@...or.com,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
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
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> do you have any memories about the outb_p() use of misc_32.c:
>
> pos = (x + cols * y) * 2; /* Update cursor position */
> outb_p(14, vidport);
> outb_p(0xff & (pos >> 9), vidport+1);
> outb_p(15, vidport);
> outb_p(0xff & (pos >> 1), vidport+1);
>
> was this ever needed? This is so early in the bootup that can we cannot
> do any sensible delay. Perhaps we could try a natural delay sequence via
> inb from 0x3cc:
>
> outb(14, vidport);
> inb(0x3cc); /* delay */
> outb(0xff & (pos >> 9), vidport+1);
I've never seen code which would do that, and it was not suggested by any
tutorial I ever saw. I'd expect any machine to break on all kinds of software
if it required this. The only thing I remember being warned about is writing
the index and the data register at the same time using outw, because that
would write both registers at the same time on 16-bit-cards.
BTW: The error function in linux-2.6.23/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c
uses while(1) without cpu_relax() in order to halt the machine. Is this fixed?
Should it be fixed?
--
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