Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Cleanup port 0x80 use (was: Re: IO delay ...) | Date | Fri, 15 Mar 2002 18:05:57 +0000 (GMT) | From | Alan Cox <> |
| |
> I am still wondering, though, why this method of getting a delay > is used so often. IMO in most places one could use udelay(1) instead, > with much less risk of doing wrong.
udelay(1) I don't believe is enough. Unfortunately I can't find my documentation on the ISA bus which covers the timeout for acknowledging an address cycle. Otherwise for tsc capable boxes I agree entirely. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |