Mark Hahn wrote: > > #ifdef SLOW_IO_BY_JUMPING > > #define __SLOW_DOWN_IO "\njmp 1f\n1:\tjmp 1f\n1:" > > #else > > -#define __SLOW_DOWN_IO "\noutb %%al,$0x80" > > +#define __SLOW_DOWN_IO "\noutb %%al,$0x19" > > this is nutty: why can't udelay be used here? empirical measurements > in the thread show the delay is O(2us). Does anyone remember where __SLOW_DOWN_IO is needed any more? udelay() makes sense. Modern drivers use small udelays themselves to confirm to chip specs. Some ISA drivers appear to use outb_p "just to be on the safe side", no idea if it's appropriate or not. Some even mix outb and outb_p based on educated guesses. I know, I've written such code :-) -- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: Linux Post codes during r... H. Peter Anvin
- Re: Linux Post codes during runtime, p... Pavel Machek
- Re: Linux Post codes during runtime, p... Mark H. Wood
- Re: Linux Post codes during runti... Richard B. Johnson
- Re: Linux Post codes during runti... mirabilos
- Re: Linux Post codes during r... Richard B. Johnson
- Re: Linux Post codes during r... mirabilos
- Re: Linux Post codes during runtime, possibly OT Petr Vandrovec
- Re: Linux Post codes during runtime, possibly OT Richard B. Johnson
- Re: Linux Post codes during runtime, possibly ... Mark Hahn
- Re: Linux Post codes during runtime, possi... Jamie Lokier
- Re: Linux Post codes during runtime, p... Richard B. Johnson
- Re: Linux Post codes during runti... Jamie Lokier
- Re: Linux Post codes during runtime, possibly OT Manfred Spraul
- Re: Linux Post codes during runtime, possibly OT Richard B. Johnson
- Re: Linux Post codes during runtime, possibly ... Brian Gerst
- Re: Linux Post codes during runtime, possi... Pavel Machek