From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 4 01:49:49 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 959B11065670; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:49:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xcllnt@mac.com) Received: from smtpoutm.mac.com (smtpoutm.mac.com [17.148.16.72]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9D18FCA1; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 01:49:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xcllnt@mac.com) Received: from asmtp012-bge351000.mac.com (asmtp012-bge351000 [10.150.69.75]) by smtpoutm.mac.com (Xserve/smtpout009/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id m641nnsG010336; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 18:49:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Received: from [192.168.1.102] (209-128-86-226.BAYAREA.NET [209.128.86.226]) by asmtp012.mac.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-6.03 (built Mar 14 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0K3G00KC7L30VF20@asmtp012.mac.com>; Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:49:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-id: <993E865A-A426-4036-9E09-A87D7474DE80@mac.com> From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Sam Leffler In-reply-to: <486D4006.2050303@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:49:47 -0700 References: <20080702190901.GS14567@hoeg.nl> <20080703193406.GS29380@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20080703205220.GW14567@hoeg.nl> <486D4006.2050303@freebsd.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926) Cc: FreeBSD Arch , Ed Schouten , FreeBSD Current 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 01:49:49 -0000 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. -- Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt@mac.com