ok the 'whole lot faster' bit is an exaggeration. :)
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Padraig Brady wrote:
> Well this depends. For large wads of data the compiler/CPU should
> do a better job @ optimising memory access instructions as
> apposed to inb etc?
i guess so.
but i think the best reason is that processors and chipsets are
geared/optimised towards memory access.
also, just using an IO space IO instruction must surely have some
overhead compared to a programme that just solely reads and writes
away to various memory addresses. (i'm just guessing). else why is it
that some other arches just never bothered with special port IO
finally, as most hardware (decent, ie PCI) has been mmap'ed IO, i'll
bet chipset designers don't do much work on port IO beyond "ok, it
> Also for hardware compatibility reasons I think, most ports in
> the 0-0x3ff range take almost exactly 1 microsecond to access.
i'll still bet mmap IO is faster. :)
also, might be wrong, but on x86 port IO only gets you to the top of
ISA address space, no? eg, aren't there only 65536 IO ports on x86?
(i'm probably wrong though - dont tell kevin!).
> This has good linux specific info:
Paul Jakma paul at clubi.iepaul at jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
If mathematically you end up with the wrong answer, try multiplying by
the page number.
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!