From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jan 11 16:42:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA25670 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:42:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.scsn.net (scsn.net [206.25.246.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA25564 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:41:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dmaddox@scsn.net) Received: from rhiannon.scsn.net ([209.12.57.50]) by mail.scsn.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c) ID# 0-41950U6000L1100S0) with ESMTP id AAA205; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 19:40:17 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by rhiannon.scsn.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id TAA00370; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 19:41:20 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from root) Message-ID: <19980111194120.34679@scsn.net> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 19:41:20 -0500 From: Charlie Root To: John Kelly Cc: dmaddox@scsn.net, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 16650 Support(?) Reply-To: dmaddox@scsn.net References: <19980111150619.48677@scsn.net> <34b95e60.140553@mail.cetlink.net> <34B957B6.AEC4CDAF@scsn.net> <34bf6bef.3609890@mail.cetlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88 In-Reply-To: <34bf6bef.3609890@mail.cetlink.net>; from John Kelly on Mon, Jan 12, 1998 at 01:11:32AM +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk On Mon, Jan 12, 1998 at 01:11:32AM +0000, John Kelly wrote: > 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. Interesting information... This card doesn't have a jumper for the clockspeed, though. The only jumpers on the board are for setting the IRQ and COM port. The clock is, as far as I can tell, fixed at 4x normal 16550 speed (It supports baud rates up to 430,800bps). Maybe the 4x clock is the problem?