Alan Cox wrote:

>On Llu, 2005-02-07 at 09:29, Charles-Edouard Ruault wrote:
>  
>
>>- Why is the generic timer using this address ? isn't it reserving a too 
>>wide portion of IO ports ? Should it be modified for this board ?
>>    
>>
>
>It just reserved the entire chip space since way back when.
>
>  
>
>>-  If there's a good reason for the timer to request this address, is  
>>there a clean way to share it with the timer ?
>>    
>>
>
>Submit a small patch to Linus/Andrew to make the generic code only
>reserve the ports it should. It's just a historical oversight
>
>  
>
Linus, Andrew,
As suggested by Alan, here's a small patch against kernel 2.4.29 to 
split the IO addresses reserved for the  PC timer into two regions 
instead of a large one.
It mimics what has been done in kernel 2.6.
Instead of reserving 0x40 through 0x5f it reserves only what the two 
timers need, i.e 0x40-0x43 and 0x50-0x53.
It patches both i386 and x86_64 architecture.

Please CC me in replies since i did not subscribe to the list.

-- 
Charles-Edouard Ruault
Idtect SA
115 rue Reaumur - 75002, Paris, France
Tel: +33-1-55-34-76-65
Fax: +33-1-55-34-76-75
Web: http://www.idtect.com