On 17-12-07 22:56, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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)
Please see Alan's comment that udelay (and none) shouldn't yet be
provided as a choice. It opens race windows in drivers even when it
works in practice on most setups. The version with "udelay" and "none"
is not minimal, not low risk and certainly not .24 material.
huh? By default we still use port 0x80. Any udelay is non-default and
needs the user to explicitly switch to it. But it enables us to debug
any suspected drivers by asking testers to: "please try this driver with
io_delay=udelay, does it still work fine?". So those extra options are
quite sensible. If you have any real technical arguments against that
then please let us know.
Ingo, have lots of fun playing with yourself, but remove my sign off from
anything with the udelay and none methods.
Rene.
--
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/
