Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 21:19:41 +1100 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: bde@zeta.org.au, gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, jak@cetlink.net Subject: Re: 650 UART, SIO driver, 8259 PIC Message-ID: <199711301019.VAA09201@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> >then you have to decide you to tell each port what it's number in the >> >status register... you don't want to have to force some aweful hack >> >like requiring the port number to be congruent to device number mod 4... >> >that would just be terrible (though most people do something similar).. >> >> Doesn't the master port give it? The master port is more for control, >> but it is a normal h/w hack for the control and status ports to be >> the same. > >well.. assuming that you make the master port, port 4 on the board.. >but there is nothing that assures us this will happen.. the only way >it to document it's requirement... It is documented. See sio.4. >> NetBSD uses a separate driver (with just the AST-specific parts). I'm >> not sure how it configures a pair of boards sharing an irq. > >seems a waste to me... all the code to manipulate the uart is already >in sio... IIRC, it only has the AST-specific parts (initialization and a special loop to test the status register). Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711301019.VAA09201>