From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Aug 10 12:52:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA10310 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 12:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA10304 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 12:52:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id MAA11188; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 12:48:48 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199708101948.MAA11188@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: ISDN drivers/cards To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 12:48:48 -0700 (MST) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <19970810090528.OS10788@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Aug 10, 97 09:05:28 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > As Tom Samplonius wrote: > > > > going from TA to TA or TA to Router, I'd love to see an internal card that > > > doesn't use 16550's that I can put in my freebsd machine and get good > > > > This can be improved a lot. Most TAs support a 230400bps rate, but > > FreeBSD does not. > > Well, that's not the first time you're spreading this misinformation > around: FreeBSD _would_ support this rate (basically), but the under- > lying hardware doesn't. > > If you've got a card where you could double the oscillator frequency, > simply do it, and FreeBSD will support 230400 bps (but call it 115200 > still). Didn't Tom post a while back about needing a driver for a faster UART, but not knowing how to pass the information down? Was that Tom? I remember that *someone* had just done this, and no one responded to the request for how to set 230400. There *is* a B230400 in termios.h, if anyone is interested... I didn't respond to the initial request because I thought Bruce Evans or Mike Smith would answer the question. > > FreeBSD-current now detects the 16670 UART that supports 230400 (and > > faster. But it doesn't seem possible to set a port to 230400. > > Ah, that's what you mean. So, if they support 230 kbps, they must > have left the way it used to be done in a 8250-compatible UART. (The > divisor 1 already yielded 115200. Are they using divisor 0 now? :-) If they are, they are using it to say "look elsewhere for your divisor"; probably they just have another divisor register that someone needs to teach sio about... like someone with a 16670 UART to play with. 8-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.