On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:17:24AM -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 16:27 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:
> > 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?
>...

I don't think the latter statement was true - AFAIR there are Alphas 
with ISA slots.

quoted text
> Agree.
> 
> Zach

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

--
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/