Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 21:24:22 +0900 (JST) From: Takahashi Yoshihiro <nyan@jp.FreeBSD.org> To: xcllnt@mac.com Cc: ed@80386.nl, sam@freebsd.org, imp@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MPSAFE TTY schedule [uart vs sio] Message-ID: <20080705.212422.226755141.nyan@jp.FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <29489C48-93A2-41D9-9EF1-5395A673A9B3@mac.com> References: <20080704.063540.1210476607.imp@bsdimp.com> <20080704.221043.226715262.nyan@jp.FreeBSD.org> <29489C48-93A2-41D9-9EF1-5395A673A9B3@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <29489C48-93A2-41D9-9EF1-5395A673A9B3@mac.com> Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> writes: > > The uart probably works for some 16550 based devices but does not work > > for other one like multi-port devices. > > The design principle of uart(4) is that it does not know > about multi-port hardware. It controls a single serial > port only. For multi-port hardware you must have multiple > nodes on a bus or use an umbrella driver, such as puc(4), > quicc(4) or scc(4). Those drivers provide attachments for > every port. > > I suspect that support for multi-port devices is not to > hard to do on pc98... Many serial devices on pc98 use indirect I/O space, so resource management is quite complex. Therefore, it may need more work you think. At the starting point, I have added CBus frontend and fixed console support for pc98. http://home.jp.freebsd.org/~nyan/patches/uart_pc98.diff.bz2 --- TAKAHASHI Yoshihiro <nyan@jp.FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080705.212422.226755141.nyan>