[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4777DB4E.9080105@keyaccess.nl>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:54:22 +0100
From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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
On 30-12-07 18:06, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl> wrote:
>> Real ISA systems will also generally respond faster to it than the
>> unused port (this thing actually has an ISA bus but not VGA on it
>> ofcourse) which means that "a perfect delay register" it is not. But
>> yes, I have an actual Am386DX-40 with ISA VGA up and running which
>> also doesn't care either way, about the ones in misc_32.c or anywhere
>> else for that matter.
>
> yeah - and that's typical of most _p() use: most of them are totally
> bogus, but the global existence of the delay was used as a "it _might_
> break system" boogey-man against replacing it.
No delaying at all does break a few systems.
> so _IF_ we do any delay in x86 platform drivers, we at most do a delay
> on the order of the round-trip latency to the same piece of hardware we
> are handling.
Given that part of the problem is 2 MHz devices on a 8 MHz bus, you can't do
this generally.
Rene.
--
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