quoted

quoted

quoted

-    outb(reg, base);
-    outb(val, base + 1);
+    outw( reg + ( val<<  8), base);

That modification does fix your problem, right? The others above

don't

quoted

quoted

help nor harm but we don't know if it's really realted to the same
problem. I wll dig a bit deeper.

Exactly. The others above I removed because facing the opposite,

even

quoted

missing interrupts but then just to avoid other possible side

effects

quoted

and then assuming that they might be related.

OK. My concern: Can we be sure that 16bit accesses are always

supported

by the hardware? Does a spinlock_irqsave/spinlock_irqrestore around

the

8bit accesses already help?

Hmmm... are there any register reads that need the
same 'double cycle' sequence ??
If so you need to stop reads being interleaved (with
themselves and writes) so requesting a 16bit access
doesn't help.

Which means you need a spinlock...

	David