[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <478781F1.8040406@keyaccess.nl>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:49:21 +0100
From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
To: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@...d.com>
CC: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>,
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.
On 11-01-08 15:35, David P. Reed wrote:
> Rene Herman wrote:
>> On 11-01-08 02:36, Zachary Amsden wrote:
>>
>>> FWIW, I fixed the problem locally by recompiling, changing port 80 to
>>> port 84 in io.h; works great, and doesn't conflict with any occupied
>>> ports.
>>
>> Might not give you a "proper" delay though. 0xed should be a better
>> choice...
>>
> I don't think there is any magic here.
Golly, you don't think so? Just commenting on his local hack. Port 0x84 is
inside the (reserved) DMA page register range and stands a better chance of
not being echoed onto ISA by various chipsets than 0xed does due to that.
Yes -- on a sane machine it's all useless anyway and with all sane machines
this discussion would've ended quite some time ago already. It's the insane,
obsolete legacy junk that's the problem.
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