Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 23:11:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: tony@dell.com (Tony Overfield) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: INB question Message-ID: <199709282311.QAA18807@usr07.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970928015842.006ce080@bugs.us.dell.com> from "Tony Overfield" at Sep 28, 97 01:58:42 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >This is actually bogus as hell. First, because it's an input, not > >an output. > > I don't see anything wrong with using an input for this. An input doesn't guarantee a synchronization cycle, but an output does. The point of the delay is to get a synchronization cycle. It would be better to force it than to hope that it got done in the time window of the inb. > It doesn't matter whether the port exists, the only benefit of the > access is that it causes a slow ISA bus cycle, which will happen > even if the port doesn't exist. I think -- according to Van Gilluwe, anyway -- an input does not necessarily cause a cycle, but an output will, for sure. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709282311.QAA18807>