On 17-12-07 21:57, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Rene Herman wrote: >> On 17-12-07 17:12, Alan Cox wrote: >> >>> I don't think we should be offering udelay based delays at this point. >>> There are a lot of drivers to fix first. This is just one trivial >>> example >> >> I agree. This thread's too full of people calling this outb method a >> dumb hack. It's a well-known legacy PC thing and while in practice the >> udelay might be a functional replacement for a majority of cases (save >> the races you are finding) a delay proportional to the bus speed makes >> great sense certainly when talking to hardware that itself runs >> proportinal to the bus speed for example. >> >> So, really, how about just sticking in this minimal version for now? >> Only switches the port to 0xed based on DMI and is all that is needed >> to fix the actual problem. This should be minimal and no-risk enough >> that it could also go to .24 if people want it to. It'll fix a few HP >> laptops (I'll try and get/verify the dv6000z DMI strings as well). >> > > I think retaining the command-line option available is a good thing, > though. If nothing else, it is something very quick we can ask other > people to try if they seem to have similar problems. Well, yes, I guess that does make sense. It's back again. Named the choices "standard" and "alternate" again as I feel "0x80" and "0xed" suggest they're free values a bit too much but if anyone feels strongly about it, so be it. > Other than that, this alternate-port patch is a low-impact patch not > affecting hardware not on the blacklist, which makes it appropriate for > 2.6.24 IMO. Signed-off-by: Rene Herman