On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Rene Herman wrote: > On 08-01-08 00:24, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Rene Herman wrote:
> > > 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. OTOH, the DOS drivers I heared about use delays and would break on underclocked ISA busses if the n * ISA_HZ delay was needed. Maybe somebody having a configurable ISA bus speed and some problematic chips can test it ... -- Fun things to slip into your budget "I [Meow Cat] sliped in 'Legal fees for firing Jim (Jim's my [his] boss).' Jim approved the budget and was fired when upper management saw the budget." -- 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/
