Re: [PATCH] Cleanup port 0x80 use (was: Re: IO delay ...)

From: Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Date: Fri Mar 15 2002 - 13:05:57 EST

Next message: J.S.S.: "RE: Default kernel configuration"
Previous message: Martin Wilck: "[PATCH] Cleanup port 0x80 use (was: Re: IO delay ...)"
In reply to: Martin Wilck: "[PATCH] Cleanup port 0x80 use (was: Re: IO delay ...)"
Next in thread: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: [PATCH] Cleanup port 0x80 use (was: Re: IO delay ...)"
Reply: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: [PATCH] Cleanup port 0x80 use (was: Re: IO delay ...)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> I am still wondering, though, why this method of getting a delay
> is used so often. IMO in most places one could use udelay(1) instead,
> with much less risk of doing wrong.

udelay(1) I don't believe is enough. Unfortunately I can't find my
documentation on the ISA bus which covers the timeout for acknowledging an
address cycle. Otherwise for tsc capable boxes I agree entirely.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: J.S.S.: "RE: Default kernel configuration"
Previous message: Martin Wilck: "[PATCH] Cleanup port 0x80 use (was: Re: IO delay ...)"
In reply to: Martin Wilck: "[PATCH] Cleanup port 0x80 use (was: Re: IO delay ...)"
Next in thread: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: [PATCH] Cleanup port 0x80 use (was: Re: IO delay ...)"
Reply: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: [PATCH] Cleanup port 0x80 use (was: Re: IO delay ...)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 15 2002 - 22:00:21 EST