Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 01:11:32 GMT From: jak@cetlink.net (John Kelly) To: dmaddox@scsn.net Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 16650 Support(?) Message-ID: <34bf6bef.3609890@mail.cetlink.net> In-Reply-To: <34B957B6.AEC4CDAF@scsn.net> References: <19980111150619.48677@scsn.net> <34b95e60.140553@mail.cetlink.net> <34B957B6.AEC4CDAF@scsn.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 18:37:26 -0500, dmaddox@scsn.net (Donald J. Maddox) wrote: > Hmmm... I originally configured it as a basic 16550, since >sio apparently doesn't have any support for >115.2Kbps anyway, but >even then it looked like the baud rate just couldn't be changed >from 9600. I suppose it's possible that the LavaPort's interface >is non-standard(?) Anybody have any experience with this card? A 650 is a 650 no matter what card it's on. All programming of the registers takes place on the UART, not the card. Perhaps you are doing something else wrong. I have 650's on a Byterunner card working with my ISDN at 230k. SIO programs the UART with a value of "1" which is 115,200 for a 1x clock, but 230,400 for a 2x clock. The clock is controlled by a jumper on the card and SIO doesn't care. It only cares about writing the value "1" to the appropriate UART register. There is more to the story because of the clock selection bit in the 650 UART, but the details should be irrelevant for your purposes. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?34bf6bef.3609890>