[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wg_-_FP+B6ePabvj55_ok1YbYCsGHzYsZ064FpE4RqkTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 11:32:22 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Serge Belyshev <belyshev@...ni.sinp.msu.ru>,
Dirk Gouders <dirk@...ders.net>,
Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] rtc: mc146818: Dont test for bit 0-5 in Register D
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:24 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> While it cures the problem on the reporters machine it breaks machines
> with Intel chipsets which use bit 0-5 of the D register. So check only
> for bit 6 being 0 which is the case on these Intel machines as well.
This looks fine, but it might also be worth it simply just checking
for the only really special value: 0xff, and going "ok, that looks
like missing hardware".
That's what a few other drivers historically do in their probing
routines, so it's not unheard of (ie you can find drivers doing that
kind of
/* If we read 0xff from the LSR, there is no UART here. */
if (inb(.. port ..) == 0xff)
in their init routines.
Not a big deal either way, I just think it would be more in like with
what other places do in similar situations
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists