David P. Reed wrote: > I think we probably have a great shot at getting Intel, Microsoft, HP, > et al.. to add a feature for Linux to one of the ACPI table > specifications that define an "unused port for delay purposes" field > in the ACPI 4.0 spec, and retrofit it into PC/104 machine BIOSes. At > least Microsoft doesn't have a patent on using port 80 for delay > purposes. :-)
This use of port 80 (or insert some other random number) is a croc of hackery of the most inexperienced kind. The task to be performed is to delay for some period, and I think it's a mix of bloody mindedness and fear of unfamiliar code and specification that explains why a delay is not being coded. Lest we forget, someone who should know better said that an OUT is used because you don't know how long the delay should be on any specific machine. What rubbish. For what it's worth, I would oppose any attempt to ammend ACPI specifications in the way described above. It's bad enough to have that embarrassing and unseemly hack in Linux. It would be so much worse to enshrine the practice as industry standard practice. I won't even mention the many instances of these delays where no delay is what properly is needed. Performance? Who cares about performance? -- 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/
