Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:49:47 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> To: Sam Leffler <sam@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Arch <arch@freebsd.org>, Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: MPSAFE TTY schedule [uart vs sio] Message-ID: <993E865A-A426-4036-9E09-A87D7474DE80@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <486D4006.2050303@freebsd.org> References: <20080702190901.GS14567@hoeg.nl> <20080703193406.GS29380@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20080703205220.GW14567@hoeg.nl> <486D4006.2050303@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?993E865A-A426-4036-9E09-A87D7474DE80>