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

[Bodo Eggert]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 08-01-08 00:24, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Rene Herman wrote:

> > > Is this only about the ones then left for things like legacy PIC and PIT?
> > > Does anyone care about just sticking in a udelay(2) (or 1) there as a
> > > replacement and call it a day?
> > > 
> > 
> > PIT is problematic because the PIT may be necessary for udelay setup.
> 
> Yes, can initialise loops_per_jiffy conservatively. Just didn't quite get why
> you guys are talking about an ISA bus speed parameter.

If the ISA bus is below 8 MHz, we might need a longer delay. If we default
to the longer delay, the delay will be too long for more than 99,99 % of 
all systems, not counting i586+. Especially if the driver is fine-tuned to 
give maximum throughput, this may be bad.

OTOH, the DOS drivers I heared about use delays and would break on 
underclocked ISA busses if the n * ISA_HZ delay was needed. Maybe
somebody having a configurable ISA bus speed and some problematic
chips can test it ...

-- 
Fun things to slip into your budget
"I [Meow Cat] sliped in 'Legal fees for firing Jim (Jim's my [his] boss).'
Jim approved the budget and was fired when upper management saw the budget."
--
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/