From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Jan 11 17:32:17 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA01762
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 17:32:17 -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 RAA01530
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 17:31:08 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from dmaddox@scsn.net)
Received: from rhiannon.scsn.net ([208.133.153.130]) by mail.scsn.net
          (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c)
          ID# 0-41950U6000L1100S0) with ESMTP id AAA144;
          Sun, 11 Jan 1998 20:14:20 -0500
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by rhiannon.scsn.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id UAA00637;
	Sun, 11 Jan 1998 20:15:24 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from root)
Message-ID: <19980111201523.46764@scsn.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 20:15:23 -0500
From: dmaddox@scsn.net (Donald J. Maddox)
To: John Kelly <jak@cetlink.net>
Cc: 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> <19980111194120.34679@scsn.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88
In-Reply-To: <19980111194120.34679@scsn.net>; from Charlie Root on Sun, Jan 11, 1998 at 07:41:20PM -0500
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jan 11, 1998 at 07:41:20PM -0500, Charlie Root wrote:
> 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?

Well, it turned out that the 4x clock _was_ the problem...  I just had
to set my speed to 57600 to talk to the modem at 230400.  Duh.  Thanks
for all the help, guys...