From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 4 12:36:23 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAFAA10656EB; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 12:36:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89F638FC2B; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 12:36:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m64CXlbI033174; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 06:33:47 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:35:40 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20080704.063540.1210476607.imp@bsdimp.com> To: xcllnt@mac.com From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <993E865A-A426-4036-9E09-A87D7474DE80@mac.com> References: <20080703205220.GW14567@hoeg.nl> <486D4006.2050303@freebsd.org> <993E865A-A426-4036-9E09-A87D7474DE80@mac.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: arch@freebsd.org, sam@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, ed@80386.nl Subject: Re: MPSAFE TTY schedule [uart vs sio] X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:36:23 -0000 In message: <993E865A-A426-4036-9E09-A87D7474DE80@mac.com> Marcel Moolenaar writes: : : On Jul 3, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Sam Leffler wrote: : : >> But I just got told sio(4) is required for pc98, because uart(4) is : >> not : >> supported there. This means I'll seriously consider porting sio(4) : >> one : >> of these days. It's no biggie, even though I think someone could : >> better : >> take the effort to extend uart(4). : >> : > : > I would suggest first investigating how difficult it is to port uart : > to pc98. Given that we're broadening our platform support having a : > single serial driver seems preferable. : : I looked into it in 2003 but since I don't have any hardware, : I wasn't the one able to do it. I think the fundamental problem : is that the BRG is not part of the UART itself and needs a : separate handle or even (tag, handle) pair to access. That's as : far as I know the only big thing about the work. : : For me not having access to the hardware is a showstopper for : looking into it myself. Do you need physical access? I have a pc98 machine I can put back on the network. It has the 8251 chip in it. It also has a 16550 part as well since it is a later model which had both... I believe that uart works for the 16550 part, but haven't tried it lately... Warner