From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Sep 28 16:12:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA29499 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 16:12:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usr07.primenet.com (tlambert@usr07.primenet.com [206.165.6.207]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA29476 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 16:12:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA18807; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 16:11:49 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199709282311.QAA18807@usr07.primenet.com> Subject: Re: INB question To: tony@dell.com (Tony Overfield) Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 23:11:48 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19970928015842.006ce080@bugs.us.dell.com> from "Tony Overfield" at Sep 28, 97 01:58:42 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > >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.