Re: RFC: outb 0x80 in inb_p, outb_p harmful on some modern AMD64with MCP51 laptops

[Pavel Machek]

On Tue 2007-12-11 14:32:49, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > The LPC bus behaviour is absolutely and precisely defined. The timing of
> > the inb is defined in bus clocks which is perfect as the devices needing
> > delay are running at a fraction of busclock usually busclock/2.
> > 
> > Older processors did not have a high precision timer so you couldn't
> > calibrate loop based delays for 1uS.
> 
> For newer CPUs udelay() would be probably fine though. We seem
> to have several documented examples now where the bus aborts
> trigger hardware bugs, and it is always better to avoid such situations.
> 
> I still think the best strategy would be to switch based on TSC
> availability. Perhaps move out*_p out of line to avoid code bloat.

Why is TSC significant? udelay() based on bogomips seems to be good
enough...?
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/