Re: [PATCH] x86: provide a DMI based port 0x80 I/O delay override

[Christer Weinigel]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:13:29 +0000
Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > But that does't mean that other ports won't have the same timings.
> > Also, it doesn't mean that we really need to have exactly *those*
> > timings.
> 
> For ISA bus you want "at least" those timings. That is an easy case
> anyway - ISA bus boxes, old processors and generally no TSC so we can
> fall back to 0x80 - we know from 15 years experience the problem only
> occurs with recent non ISA systems that have borked firmware.
> 
> Lots of ISA hardware does really need the delays and most of it will
> be on old processors as well naturally enough.

If I recall correctly, the MediaGX/Geode processor does need _p for the
PIT accesses, and that CPU family does have a TSC (even though the TSC
stops at times so is hard to use).  I also seem to remember that the
breakage did not happen very often, but running a system without _p
overnight usually showed one hiccup where a read from the counter got
corrupted.

So unless I'm wrong (which I very well could be, it's been a couple of
years since I was debugging the PIT code on a misbehaving Geode SC1200
based system) there is at least one fairly modern CPU, which is used in
lots of embedded systems, and in active use, which does need the _p.

Just a data point... It's not only ancient systems that need _p.

  /Christer

-- 
"Just how much can I get away with and still go to heaven?"

Christer Weinigel <christer@xxxxxxxxxxx>  http://www.weinigel.se
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/