[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071230204650.GA26120@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:46:50 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>,
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
* Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > So the current plan is to go with an io_delay=udelay default in v2.6.25,
> > to give this a migration window, and io_delay=none in v2.6.26 [and a
> > complete removal of arch/x86/kernel/io_delay.c], once the _p() uses are
> > fixed up. This is gradual enough to notice any regressions we care about
> > and also makes it nicely bisectable and gradual.
>
> You will break systems if you blindly go around disabling _p delays
> for ISA and LPC bus devices. The DEC Hinote laptops for example are
> well known for requiring the correct ISA and other keyboard controller
> delays. I don't expect anyone to test with a hinote or see it until it
> hits Debian or similar 'low resource' friendly devices.
well, using io_delay=udelay is not 'blindly disabling'. io_delay=none
would be the end goal, once all _p() API uses are eliminated by
transformation. In drivers/ alone that's more than 1000 callsites, so
it's quite frequently used, and wont go away overnight.
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