Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 21:20:21 GMT From: puc-art@oldach.net (Helge Oldach) To: freebsd-i386@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: i386/105616: UART PCI device just silent... Message-ID: <200611182120.kAILKLeI003384@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR i386/105616; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: puc-art@oldach.net (Helge Oldach)
To: xcllnt@mac.com (Marcel Moolenaar)
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: i386/105616: UART PCI device just silent...
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:16:56 +0100 (CET)
Hi Marcel,
Marcel Moolenaar:
>On Nov 18, 2006, at 10:14 AM, Helge Oldach wrote:
>> So I understand no specific puc(4) attribution needs to be made for
>> this card. It is already properly recognized, albeit with misleading
>> text in pucdata.c:
>>
>> { "Dolphin Peripherals 4036",
>> { 0x1409, 0x7168, 0, 0 },
>> { 0xffff, 0xffff, 0, 0 },
>> {
>> { PUC_PORT_TYPE_COM, 0x10, 0x00, COM_FREQ * 8 },
>> { PUC_PORT_TYPE_COM, 0x10, 0x08, COM_FREQ * 8 },
>> },
>> },
>
>Hmmm, if puc currently has a clock of 8 times the default, then
>we may have another problem. Could you check if puc got it
>wrong as it is?
Yes, this is the case. I tried with the original pucdata.c as well as
original uart_bus_pci.c. I forgot to mention that I am running a rather
recent STABLE. CTM'ed just a week ago.
I tried to attach with all speeds to cuau2, using cu -s <speed>. This
should be a 9600 baud port (it talks to a standard Cisco router console
port and works fine at 9600 Baud with sio). Particularly, neither 1200
nor 115200 work.
I also changed the "COM_FREQ * 8" to just "COM_FREQ", and retried the
exercise. Same result: the ports just stay silent.
BTW, I would be rather astonished if the latter exercise would change
things, as the board works fine under sio(4) attached to puc(4), hence
"COM_FREQ * 8" is probably the Right Thing.
I also tried swapping the ports (just in case sio and uart disagree on
the numbering) - same. Actually I have a Palm serial cradle on the other
port, and attaching with cu to it outputs some blank lines immediately
after I hit the sync button on the cradle. This is the same port that
sio(4) recognizes as "the Palm port".
>>> Note also that I have not heard of uart(4) being wrong in
>>> classifying the type as 16550, 1660 or otherwise.
>> Fine with me. I am not claiming the source mentioned is correct. I
>> just say there appears to be some disagreement.
>The disagreement may be important. Maybe your card has "false" PCI ids
>and is recognized for something it isn't.
Well... guessing from the box that it shipped with and the documentation
(which labels the board as a #4037 type board) there is indeed a little
room for a mismatch. The box says "two 16C550 UART with 32 Byte FIFO"
while the documentation says "two 16C650 32FIFO". I suspect the box's
mentioning of 16550 is simply marketing blurb.
The PCI/UART combo chip is a SUN1889 which AFAIK is indeed specified
with 32 Byte FIFO. The serial driver chip is a TI-75232. This appears
pretty identical to what the above source mentions. I can send you
photos if you like. :-)
>Of course, there may also be bugs in the source code that exhibit them-
>selves this way. It would be good to find out what it is...
Just advise, I can play with this box as I prefer... What strikes me
is that sio(4) (also attached to puc(4)) supports the board just fine,
while uart(4) apparently doesn't.
Regards,
Helge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200611182120.kAILKLeI003384>