[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4782B515.3010008@keyaccess.nl>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:26:13 +0100
From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>,
Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"David P. Reed" <dpreed@...d.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.
On 08-01-08 00:24, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Rene Herman wrote:
>>
>> Is this only about the ones then left for things like legacy PIC and
>> PIT? Does anyone care about just sticking in a udelay(2) (or 1) there
>> as a replacement and call it a day?
>>
>
> PIT is problematic because the PIT may be necessary for udelay setup.
Yes, can initialise loops_per_jiffy conservatively. Just didn't quite get
why you guys are talking about an ISA bus speed parameter.
Rene.
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