lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: IDE janitoring comments

Yep, just be careful of how to decouple the hwif->iops from procfs for pci
and the general lameness of x86 centric issues.

On 24 Aug 2002, Alan Cox wrote:

> On Sat, 2002-08-24 at 16:15, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > - Do we really want to keep all those _P versions around ?
> > A quick grep showed _only_ by the non-portable x86 specific
> > recovery timer stuff that taps ISA timers (well, I think ports
> > 0x40 and 0x43 and an ISA timer). I would strongly suggest to
>
> I'd like to keep them around for the moment. They should be using
> udelay() but thats a general issue with _p inb/outb etc.
>
> > After much thinking about the above, I came to the conslusion
> > we probably want to just kill all the IN_BYTE, OUT_BYTE, etc.
>
> Agreed entirely
>
>
> > Also, getting rid of the _P version would make things a lot
> > easier as well here too.
>
> What currently uses the _P versions ?
>

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.045 / U:1.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site