Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:31:15 +0100 | From | Rene Herman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: provide a DMI based port 0x80 I/O delay override. |
| |
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.
| |