Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 02:07:04 GMT From: jak@cetlink.net (John Kelly) To: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 16650 Support(?) Message-ID: <34c0795e.7050337@mail.cetlink.net> In-Reply-To: <199801120007.TAA00316@dyson.iquest.net> References: <199801120007.TAA00316@dyson.iquest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 19:07:35 -0500 (EST), "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> wrote: >> The 650 support seems to be broken, so don't flag it as a 650. Run it >> as a 550 and it should work fine. You still get the benefit of the >> deeper FIFO, even when it's defined as a 550. You don't get the auto >> CTS/RTS flow control, but that has questionable value anyway. >> >I have a 16650 based card, and it appears to work well. It would be interesting >to figure out why mine works, and others don't. > Do you have it flagged as a 650 in your kernel, or as a 550? I emailed you about the SIO 650 support a couple of months ago but I guess you were busy with other stuff. There seem to be some changes in SIO for 650 support, attributed to you. If that is true, can you describe the changes? When I tried to use the 650 support in -current a couple of months ago I would always get interrupt-level buffer overflows. But as long as it was defined as a 550 it worked (and still works) fine. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?34c0795e.7050337>