Re: [PATCH] x86: use explicit timing delay for pit accesses in kerneland pcspkr driver

[Rene Herman]

On 18-02-08 22:44, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Rene Herman wrote:
> > I mean that before the linux kernel used a port 0x80 write as an I/O 
> > delay it used a short jump (two in a row actually...) as such and this 
> > was at the time that it actually ran on the old legacy stuff that is 
> > of most concern here.
> >
> > No, if I'm not mistaken, those two jumps are actually what the 
> > udelay() is going to do anyway as part of delay_loop() at that early 
> > stage so that even before loops_per_jiffy calibration, I believe we 
> > should still be okay.
>
> That doesn't make any sense at all.  The whole point why the two jumps 
> were obsoleted with the P5 (or even late P4, if I'm not mistaken) was 
> because they were utterly insufficient when the CPU ran at something 
> much higher than the external speed.

Yes, but generally not any P5+ system is going to need the PIT delay in the 
first place meaning it just doesn't matter. There were the VIA issues with 
the PIC but unless I missed it not with the PIT.

That's the point. It's fairly unclean to say udelay(2) and then not delay 
for 2 microseconds but you _have_ done the two short jumps meaning 386 and 
486 systems are okay and later systems were okay to start with.

Rene.
--
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/