Re: [PATCH] x86: provide a DMI based port 0x80 I/O delay override.

[Rene Herman]

On 17-12-07 14:31, Pavel Machek wrote:

> On Mon 2007-12-17 14:22:26, Rene Herman wrote:
> > On 17-12-07 14:09, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > > > -#ifndef CONFIG_UDELAY_IO_DELAY
> > > > > -static int __init dmi_alternate_io_delay_port(const struct 
> > > > > dmi_system_id *id)
> > > > > +static int __init dmi_io_delay_0xed_port(const struct dmi_system_id 
> > > > > *id)
> > > > >  {
> > > > > -	printk(KERN_NOTICE "%s: using alternate I/O delay port\n", id->ident);
> > > > > -	io_delay = alternate_io_delay;
> > > > > +	printk(KERN_NOTICE "%s: using 0xed I/O delay port\n", id->ident);
> > > > > +	io_delay_type = CONFIG_IO_DELAY_TYPE_0XED;
> > > > > +
> > > > >  	return 0;
> > > > >  }
> > > > This isn't correct. DMI shouldn't override the CONFIG choice or someone 
> > > > with matching DMI will have a defective CONFIG option. That's why I put 
> > > > all of it inside #ifndef.
> > > no, the DMI quirk is just that: a quirk that makes boxes work. The DMI 
> > > quirk takes precedence over just about any .config default, except an 
> > > explicit boot-commandline override.
> > No, most definitely not. Having the user select udelay or none through the 
> > kernel config and then the kernel deciding "ah, you know what, I'll know 
> > better and use port access anyway" is _utterly_ broken behaviour. Software 
> > needs to listen to its master.
>
> That's what command line is for. Ingo is right here.

No. The kernel shouldn't provide defective config options.

Rene.
--
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/