Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:31:20 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: provide a DMI based port 0x80 I/O delay override. |
| |
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. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
| |