From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl>
To: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@reed.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dtor_core@ameritech.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: use explicit timing delay for pit accesses in kernel and pcspkr driver
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:38:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47B9ECE0.70000@keyaccess.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6gr00g$g7qpu0@smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net>
On 18-02-08 19:58, David P. Reed wrote:
> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/asm-x86/i8253.h
> +++ linux-2.6/include/asm-x86/i8253.h
> @@ -12,7 +12,25 @@ extern struct clock_event_device *global
>
> extern void setup_pit_timer(void);
>
> -#define inb_pit inb_p
> -#define outb_pit outb_p
> +/* accesses to PIT registers need careful delays on some platforms. Define
> + them here in a common place */
> +static inline unsigned char inb_pit(unsigned int port)
> +{
> + /* delay for some accesses to PIT on motherboard or in chipset must be
> + at least one microsecond, but be safe here. */
> + unsigned char value = inb(port);
> + udelay(2);
> + return value;
> +}
With the remark that (at least) the PIT is accessed at a time that
microseconds and hence udelay are still a total fiction, this looks obvious
otherwise.
Now with respect to the original pre port 80 "jmp $+2" I/O delay (which the
Pentium obsoleted) I suppose it'll probably be okay even without fixing that
specifically but do note such -- it's a vital part of the problem.
Rene.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-18 20:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-18 18:58 [PATCH] x86: use explicit timing delay for pit accesses in kernel and pcspkr driver David P. Reed
2008-02-18 20:17 ` Alan Cox
2008-02-18 20:38 ` Rene Herman [this message]
2008-02-18 20:43 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-02-18 21:04 ` Rene Herman
2008-02-18 21:05 ` Rene Herman
2008-02-18 21:44 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-02-18 21:59 ` Rene Herman
2008-02-18 22:01 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-02-18 22:07 ` Rene Herman
2008-02-18 22:32 ` Rene Herman
2008-02-18 22:44 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-02-20 12:06 ` Rene Herman
2008-02-20 17:05 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-02-20 17:09 ` Rene Herman
2008-02-20 20:13 ` [linux-kernel] " David P. Reed
2008-02-21 6:21 ` Rene Herman
2008-02-18 22:43 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-02-19 9:46 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=47B9ECE0.70000@keyaccess.nl \
--to=rene.herman@keyaccess.nl \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=dpreed@reed.com \
--cc=dtor_core@ameritech.net \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox