* Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17-12-07 17:12, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>> I don't think we should be offering udelay based delays at this point.
>> There are a lot of drivers to fix first. This is just one trivial example
>
> I agree. This thread's too full of people calling this outb method a
> dumb hack. It's a well-known legacy PC thing and while in practice the
> udelay might be a functional replacement for a majority of cases (save
> the races you are finding) a delay proportional to the bus speed makes
> great sense certainly when talking to hardware that itself runs
> proportinal to the bus speed for example.
>
> So, really, how about just sticking in this minimal version for now?
> Only switches the port to 0xed based on DMI and is all that is needed
> to fix the actual problem. This should be minimal and no-risk enough
> that it could also go to .24 if people want it to. It'll fix a few HP
> laptops (I'll try and get/verify the dv6000z DMI strings as well).
>
> Ingo?
>
> Signed-off-by: Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
hm, i see this as a step backwards from the pretty flexible patch that
David already tested. (and which also passed a few hundred bootup tests
on my x86 test-grid)
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
