> > bytes read from the 8254 get swapped. I've got some indirect evidence
> > that this also could happen with the original i8254.
> Im hoping not. That would imply we interrupted someone half way through
> reading the counter which means the locking is screwed up.
> > By the way, if we made the 8254 accesses (spinlock?) protected (which
> > should be done anyway, right now definitely more than one CPU can access
> > the registers at once), I think we could remove the outb(0, 0x43);,
> > saving some cycles.
> Some chipsets need the outb
common inline function that does the
check - via, other bugs
would make sense. What do you think?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/