Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:26:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:25:49 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:38661 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:25:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:24:19 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: John Heil cc: , Martin Wilck Subject: Re: IO delay, port 0x80, and BIOS POST codes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, John Heil wrote: > > No, the better/correct port is 0xED which removes the conflict. Port ED is fine for a BIOS, which (by definition) knows what the motherboard devices are, and thus knows that ED cannot be used by anything. But it _is_ an unused port, and that's exactly the kind of thing that might be used sometime in the future. Remember the port 22/23 brouhaha with Cyrix using it for their stuff, and later Intel getting into the fray too? So the fact that ED works doesn't mean that _stays_ working. The fact that 80 is the post code register means that it is fairly likely to _stay_ that way, without any ugly surprises. Now, if there is something _else_ than just the fact that it is unused that makes ED a good choice in the future too, that might be worth looking into (like NT using it for the same purpose as Linux does port 80), Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/