Re: i8042 access timings

[Andries Brouwer]

On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 02:17:33PM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

> Still, I wonder if implementing these delays will give IO controller
> better chances to react to our queries and will get rid of some
> failures.

My objection is this: by doing this you create myths that may
be difficult to dispel later. I recall other situations where
there were superfluous restrictions and I had a hard time convincing
others of the fact that the tests weren't there for any good reason,
that there was no single instance of hardware on earth known to
work better with the added restrictions.

So, I would prefer to only insert delays if at least one person
reports that things improve if you do so. Or if you can point at
data sheets that state that such delays are needed.
Or perhaps if you can show that there were delays in 2.4 absent in 2.6.

Apart from the "not creating myths" reason, there is another:
as we know, the keyboard/mouse system is in a bad state in 2.6.
It often happens that 2.6.x works and 2.6.y fails, and we ask a user
to try intermediate stages to see what change made a difference.
Applying random meaningless patches to the keyboard system creates
additional noise and uncertainty.

Andries
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/