From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Dec 18 04:26:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA14143 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 04:26:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from ns2.cetlink.net (root@ns2.cetlink.net [209.54.54.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA14133 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 04:26:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jak@cetlink.net) Received: from hot1.auctionfever.com (ts1-cltnc-52.cetlink.net [209.54.58.52]) by ns2.cetlink.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA23897; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 07:26:08 -0500 (EST) From: jak@cetlink.net (John Kelly) To: Andrew Gordon Cc: Mike Smith , FreeBSD Hackers Subject: Re: 3com 3c509 card Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 13:27:04 GMT Message-ID: <34992437.46914518@mail.cetlink.net> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.01/16.397 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by hub.freebsd.org id EAA14137 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 01:15:50 +0000 (GMT), Andrew Gordon wrote: >Note that a _standard_ cycle isn't the fastest possible cycle: 16-bit >memory cycles have one wait state, but a board can generate 0 w/s >cycles by holding NOWS* low. Since this is only applicable to memory >cycles What prevents use of 0 WS for I/O cycles? John