[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 21:26:32 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>,
"David P. Reed" <dpreed@...d.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.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.
> very much care about code size. But it has been stated in this thread
> that most of the _p() API uses in the kernel today are bogus. So
You missed a word "wrongly". It has been "wrongly stated"
I've been going through the ISA cases which are the majority. Generally
speaking they are correct. We have a couple of "interesting" PCI users
who most definitely want udelay() or removal of _p. We have various
chipset cases which want looking at in detail. The ISA drivers however
are both the main user and mostly right.
> ok, "I dont know but it might be slower" is a perfectly fine statement
> instead of your original "it will be slower".
If you use wall clock timings it will be slower.
Alan
--
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