From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 14 22:46:09 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 749A516A4CE; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:46:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ioskeha.hittite.isp.9tel.net (ioskeha.hittite.isp.9tel.net [62.62.156.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1873143D55; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:46:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from clefevre-lists@9online.fr) Received: from pc2k (unknown [80.119.154.38]) by ioskeha.hittite.isp.9tel.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 79B6A14B6B3; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:50:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <02c201c469f4$5a45b130$7890a8c0@dyndns.org> From: "Cyrille Lefevre" To: "Marcel Moolenaar" , "Poul-Henning Kamp" References: <20040714024623.GB623@dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net><38608.1089799497@critter.freebsd.dk> <20040714180816.GA5503@dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:46:07 +0200 Organization: ACME MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 cc: stable@freebsd.org cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW/HEADSUP] tty drivers mega-patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:46:09 -0000 "Marcel Moolenaar" wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:04:57PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > The traditional naming has been the inserted "i" and "l" which I > > agree is arcane. I'm not against changing it to ".init" and ".lock" > > if we can get concensus. > > We can create a simple compatibility scheme: If the out argument > to ttymakeslaves is a string of exactly 1 character, use the old > naming scheme. Otherwise, a new naming scheme is used. In the old > scheme, the slave (or out) devices are called cua*. In the new > scheme the out devices have the name given by the out argument. > > Thus: > sio(4) would call ttymakeslaves with in="d", out="a". This yields > ttyd#, ttyid#, ttyld# > cuaa#, cuaia#, cuala# > uart(4) would call ttymakeslaves with in="u", out="uart". This could > yield something like: > ttyu#, ttyu#.init, ttyu#.lock > uart#, uart#.init, uart#.lock > > Just a thought. See also below. > > > I would prefer to stick to the "tty" and "cua" prefixes however. > > I can agree on the tty prefix. I've always disliked the cua prefix, > simply because it's nonsensical. It's the kind of prefix you pick man cu(1) says : The cu interface is included for those people attached to the ``call UNIX'' command of Version 7 AT&T UNIX. looking at Version 7 AT&T cu(1c) manual page: cu telno [ -t ] [ -s speed ] [ -a acu ] [ -l line ] ... The -a and -l values may be used to specify pathnames for the ACU and communications line devices. They can be used to override the follow- ing built-in choices: -a /dev/cua0 -l /dev/cul0 which translates to the following line under FreeBSD : -a /dev/cuaa0 -l /dev/ttyd0 -a seems to be a write only device (the one to write to the modem) and -l a read only one (the one to read from the modem) -- (not verified). for memory, ACU stands for "Automatic Call Unit". so, the "cu" device name is not a so non-sense naming scheme. > when all the good (and bad) ones have been used and you randomly > grab 3 letters from your scrabble box, sigh, and accept that once > again luck hasn't been on your side :-) :-) > > Seriously: the origin of cua is mostly lost and systems like UUCP > have already been removed from the source tree. Anybody new to > FreeBSD and who hasn't been around since the epoch will completely > fail to see why the device is called the way it is. the problem w/ moving cua* to something else is that you will probably broke many programs w/ an unecessary change, IMHO. > But anyway, if you think that all serial devices should have tty$# > and cua$#, then just implement it that way. It's better to get this > rework behind us. I can adjust. If not, then I can at least commit :-) cua* are supposed to be the line to talk to a modem w/ modem control (CD, etc.) while tty* are not supposed to talk to a modem and doesn't have modem control. however, I didn't have used my modem for a long time now, so, I may be wrong w/ the current implementation. Cyrille Lefevre. -- home: mailto:cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net