On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 16:27 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:
quoted text
> On 09-01-08 06:30, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> I'd not expect very time crtical. The current outb_p use gives a delay 
> somewhere between .5 and 2 microseconds as per earlier survey meaning a 
> udelay(1) or 2 would be enough -- again, at the point that udelay() is sensible.
> 
> New machines don't use the legacy PIC anymore anyway.
> 
> > The floppy controller code uses outb_p.  Even though there might be
> > floppy controllers on modern systems, I'd rather leave the floppy code
> > alone since it's supposed to be very fragile.  If you still use
> > floppies you deserve what you get.
> 
> Floppies forever. In practice, leaving it alone isn't going to matter, but 
> in that same practice changing it to udelay() probably doesn't either. The 
> ones to leave alone are the ones that are clumsy/impossible to test and the 
> ones such as in NIC drivers that were specifically tuned.

I'm speaking specifically in terms of 64-bit platforms here.  Shouldn't
we unconditionally drop outb_p doing extra port I/O on 64-bit
architectures?  Especially considering they don't even have an ISA bus
where the decode timing could even matter?

quoted text
> If simple outb_p() deprecation is considered enough instead, no need to 
> touch anything in drivers/, only changes to "outb(); udelay()" outside drivers/.
> 
> I'd let Alan decide here.

Agree.

Zach

--
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/