[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [linux-kernel] Re: [PATCH] x86: provide a DMI based port 0x80 I/O delay override.
Alan Cox wrote:
>> If the hardware required an intermediate junk I/O, that would be a
>> reason to do one, but it doesn't, does it? It requires a delay. It's
>> written thus in all of the application notes.
> And the only instruction that is synchronized to the bus in question is
> an I/O instruction.

This is a timing issue, isn't it? How are we synchronising, other than
by delaying for a (bus-dependant) period? The characteristics of each
bus are known so a number can be assigned for "one bus cycle", without
having to use the bus.

>> Wrong again. Of course one knows how long the delay should be. The bus
>> speed is known.
> Wrong again. ISA bus speed is neither defined precisely, nor visible in a
> system portable fashion.

You say, "system portable," but I think you mean, "automatically
determined." We don't have to define this value automatically, if
that's so hard to do. We can use a tunable kernel-parameter.

> I'm so glad you have nothing better to do than troll

I'm not trolling. You know this is true because many people perceive
this to be a problem. I'm working on fixing it. Not all Linux problems
are solvable by diving into code, and there is anecdotal evidence to
believe this one has big performance considerations. I don't understand
why you are opposed to even talking about it.

> if you
> actually wrote code I'd be worried it might get into something people
> used.

Speaking of writing code: I remember working on a bluetooth Oops.
Lacking the hardware, I went to you for advice on how to get it before
someone for testing. You never replied.

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-17 07:27    [W:0.129 / U:2.756 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site