From owner-freebsd-hardware  Wed Jan 10 15: 1:35 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org
Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [12.23.109.2])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 0EC8B37B69B; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:01:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.org [12.23.109.2])
	by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA04187;
	Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:01:13 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010110160001.049aa810@localhost>
X-Sender: brett@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:01:09 -0700
To: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Subject: Re: Intel EtherExpress 16 code? 
Cc: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net>, hardware@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <200101102145.f0ALjCg00858@mass.osd.bsdi.com>
References: <Your message of "Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:00:02 MST." <4.3.2.7.2.20010110135309.0497e990@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

At 02:45 PM 1/10/2001, Mike Smith wrote:

>... except that I/O cycles on the ISA bus are twice as expensive as 
>memory cycles, so rep movw is actually better.

Nope; according to Annabooks' timing guide, they're 1.5 times as 
expensive IF you don't pull the "0 wait" line.

--Brett



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message