On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 23:12:50 +0000 Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:It's not. It's perfectly ok to drive a PCMCIA bus slower than that, IIRC we used a much slower clock speed than that on a StrongARM platform I worked a couple of years ago. The PCMCIA CIS (Card information services) allows the following device speeds: 100, 150, 200 and 250 ns. The memory card spec also allows 600 and 300 ns. The standard I/O card cycle speed is 255 ns. I believe that is "the shortest access time for a read/write cycle", and I can't tell if that is comparable to one ISA clock cycles or if it's comparable to 8 ISA bus cycles. On the other hand, there is no clock line in a PCMCIA connector, so for PCMCIA devices any delays should be absolute times, or based on some clock that is internal to the card. How that fits with the 8390 data sheet talking about bus clocks, I don't know. /Christer --
| debian developer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 002/196] Chinese: rephrase English introduction in HOWTO |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: Long delay in resume from RAM (Was Re: [patch 00/69] -stablereview) |
| Parag Warudkar | BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 15s! [swapper:0] |
git: | |
| Andi Kleen | [PATCH RFC] [4/9] modpost: Fix format string warnings |
| Rick Jones | Re: Network latency regressions from 2.6.22 to 2.6.29 |
| Antonio Almeida | HTB accuracy for high speed |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
