>> Anyways it looks like the discussion here is going in a
>> a loop. I had hoped David would post his test results with
>> another port so that we know for sure that the bus aborts (and not port
>> 80) is the problem on his box. But it looks like
>> he doesn't want to do this. Still removing the bus aborts
>> is probably the correct way to go forward.
>
> Yes, I do also still want to know that. David (Reed)?
>
>> Only needs a patch now. If nobody beats me to it i'll
>> add one later to my tree.
>
> Pavel Machek already posted one. His udelay(8) wants to be less -- 1 or "to
> be safe" perhaps 2.
>
>
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/9/131
