On 07-01-08 23:27, Bodo Eggert wrote:

quoted text
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

quoted text
>> There might have been a few 386/20's clocking the ISA bus at ­­÷3 (6.67
>> MHz) rather than ÷2 (10 MHz) or ÷2.5 (8 MHz).
> 
> Yes, and the remaining users should set the kernel option. Both of them. 
> The question is: How will they be told about the new kernel option?

What exactly are you guys still talking about? Alan is looking at drivers 
and finds that in them outb_p is generally correct and correctly specified 
in bus-clocks for at least some (8390 was quoted). In those legacy drivers, 
the _p ops can simply stay and can use the 15-year old proven 0x80 outb.

(with molnar suggesting they be renamed isa_in/outb_p and me suggesting that 
if someone would be doing _that_ they might as well split them manually in 
outb(); slow_down_io() possibly renaming slow_down_io() to isa_io_delay() or 
similar).

Is this only about the ones then left for things like legacy PIC and PIT? 
Does anyone care about just sticking in a udelay(2) (or 1) there as a 
replacement and call it a day?

Rene.

--
unsubscribe notice
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/