* Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This fixes "hwclock" triggered boottime hangs for a few HP/Compaq
> > laptops and might as such be applicable to 2.6.24 still.
>
> It's not a regression as far as I can see (ie we've always done that
> port 80 access for slow-down), and quite frankly, I think the code is
> horribly ugly.
>
> Using a DMI quirk for something like this is just not maintainable.
> Are we going to live with doing new quirks forever? I'd rather just
> remove the slowdown entirely (obviously that is not for 2.6.24 either,
> though!), and drivers that then are shown to really need it could use
> their *own* ports.
yep, that's exactly the plan: in x86.git we've got it all set up so that
we can switch over to ioport=nodelay by default in v2.6.25, and then get
rid of all the iodelay infrastructure in 2.6.26 altogether if things
work out fine (which is the expectation from all test feedback so far).
Ingo
--
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
