On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 11:36:41AM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:43:07 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 02:41:14AM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > @@ -213,7 +217,10 @@ > > > if (!retval) > > > for (i = 0; i < ((command >> 8) & 0xf); i++) { > > > if ((retval = i8042_wait_read())) break; > > > - if (i8042_read_status() & I8042_STR_AUXDATA) > > > + udelay(I8042_STR_DELAY); > > > + str = i8042_read_status(); > > [] > > > + udelay(I8042_DATA_DELAY); > > > + if (str & I8042_STR_AUXDATA) > > > param[i] = ~i8042_read_data(); > > > else > > > param[i] = i8042_read_data(); > > > > We may as well drop the negation. It's a bad way to signal the data came > > from the AUX port. Then we don't need the extra status read and can just > > proceed to read the data, since IMO we don't need to wait inbetween, > > even according to the IBM spec. > > Do you remember why it has been done to begin with? Yes. It's only for the detection of the AUX port. I wanted to know whether the byte we receive in the AUX_LOOP command really comes back through the AUX interface and not through the KBD interface. Since there isn't any other information path for signalling which interface i8042_command() received the byte through, I just negated the value there.
-- Vojtech Pavlik SuSE Labs, SuSE CR - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/