Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 21:27, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>
>
>>which currently has two problems Ross found
>>
>>1. The processors or so fast we have to enforce the 400nS delay nowdays\
>>
The reason we need to enforce the 400nS delay is because of what is
going on on the other processor. If the other processor is in ide_intr
trying to grab the spinlock and we do not give the drive time to assert
the busy bit and the other processor makes it to the call to
drive_is_ready, then the drive could still return not busy and we could
think the command is done. This code path is probably less than 50
instructions, so I don't think it's taken anywhere near 400ns for a long
time.
DMA is slightly different. We don't actually have to delay the 400ns if
we call ide_dma_begin from inside the spinlock.
Ross
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 22:00:46 EST