[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <478BE08B.3090306@reed.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:22:03 -0500
From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@...d.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
CC: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>,
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.
David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 09:35 -0500, David P. Reed wrote:
>
>> Using any "unused port" for a delay means that the machine check
>> feature is wasted and utterly unusable.
>>
>
> Not entirely unusable. You can recover silently from the machine check
> if it was one of the known accesses to the 'unused port'. It certainly
> achieves a delay :)
>
I'm sure that's what the driver writers had in mind. ;-)
And I think we probably have a great shot at getting Intel, Microsoft,
HP, et al.. to add a feature for Linux to one of the ACPI table
specifications that define an "unused port for delay purposes" field in
the ACPI 4.0 spec, and retrofit it into PC/104 machine BIOSes. At least
Microsoft doesn't have a patent on using port 80 for delay purposes. :-)
--
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