On 08-01-08 13:51, Bodo Eggert wrote:

quoted text
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Rene Herman wrote:

quoted text
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>> PIT is problematic because the PIT may be necessary for udelay setup.
>> Yes, can initialise loops_per_jiffy conservatively. Just didn't quite get why
>> you guys are talking about an ISA bus speed parameter.
> 
> If the ISA bus is below 8 MHz, we might need a longer delay. If we default
> to the longer delay, the delay will be too long for more than 99,99 % of 
> all systems, not counting i586+. Especially if the driver is fine-tuned to 
> give maximum throughput, this may be bad.

Yes, and I repeat -- old legacy ISA drivers can stay as they are. They've 
been doing what they've been doing for 15 years and given that the systems 
that break don't use them there is no practical upside to changing them and 
a big downside particularly with respect to difficulty of testing.

A somewhat overly long delay shouldn't be particularly problematic for the 
few remaining legacy hardware users _outside_ drivers/

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/