On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 04:36:51PM +0300, Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
> >> Is there some way we can make this simpler without compromising on boot
> >> speed? Adding more setup burden to the user should be the last ressort
> >> IMO.
> >>
> > [...]
> > Another usage is if OS doesn't deal with situatio
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Robert Millan wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:51:55PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
>> wrote:
>>> Hello, some BIOSes don't conform semaphore specification about handing
>>> over the control on UHCI and/or EHCI cont
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:51:55PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
>> Hello, some BIOSes don't conform semaphore specification about handing
>> over the control on UHCI and/or EHCI controller. Most OS cope with it
>> by taking owne
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:51:55PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> Hello, some BIOSes don't conform semaphore specification about handing
> over the control on UHCI and/or EHCI controller. Most OS cope with it
> by taking ownership regardless after some timeout. This however
> increas
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder'
Serbinenko wrote:
> Hello, some BIOSes don't conform semaphore specification about handing
> over the control on UHCI and/or EHCI controller. Most OS cope with it
> by taking ownership regardless after some timeout. This however
> increases booti
