[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47850FE3.2040001@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:18:11 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
CC: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>,
Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>,
"David P. Reed" <dpreed@...d.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>,
Ondrej Zary <linux@...nbow-software.org>,
Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
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 <rol@...be.net>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] x86: provide a DMI based port 0x80
I/O delay override.
Zachary Amsden wrote:
>
> I'm speaking specifically in terms of 64-bit platforms here. Shouldn't
> we unconditionally drop outb_p doing extra port I/O on 64-bit
> architectures? Especially considering they don't even have an ISA bus
> where the decode timing could even matter?
>
Why should the bitsize of the CPU matter for this? It seems one of the
less meaningful keys for this.
Second, as I have mentioned, I don't believe this is really the case,
especially not for the PIT, which is still present -- the PIT
*semantics* has explicit timing constraints.
Third, you still have ISA devices, they're just called LPC or PC104
devices these days.
-hpa
--
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