From owner-freebsd-i386@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 22 04:50:25 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-i386@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-i386@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 004ED16A49E for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2006 04:50:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [69.147.83.40]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7420543D4C for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2006 04:49:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id kAM4oNxC012459 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2006 04:50:23 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id kAM4oNPW012458; Wed, 22 Nov 2006 04:50:23 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 04:50:23 GMT Message-Id: <200611220450.kAM4oNPW012458@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-i386@FreeBSD.org From: puc-uart@oldach.net (Helge Oldach) Cc: Subject: Re: i386/105616: UART PCI device just silent... X-BeenThere: freebsd-i386@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Helge Oldach List-Id: I386-specific issues for FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 04:50:25 -0000 The following reply was made to PR i386/105616; it has been noted by GNATS. From: puc-uart@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: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:16:39 +0100 (CET) Helge Oldach: >From hmo Sat Nov 18 22:16:56 2006 >Subject: Re: i386/105616: UART PCI device just silent... >In-Reply-To: <04C70C67-60DD-4CF8-A624-E76AC92D5F42@mac.com> from Marcel Moolenaar at "Nov 18, 2006 10:31:52 am" >To: xcllnt@mac.com (Marcel Moolenaar) >Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:16:56 +0100 (CET) >Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org >From: puc-art@oldach.net (Helge Oldach) >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 . 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 >