Re: i8042 access timings

[Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:43:07 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@suse.cz> 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?

-- 
Dmitry