Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:48:10 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW/HEADSUP] tty drivers mega-patch Message-ID: <10970.1089877690@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:29:20 %2B1000." <20040715171007.X2308@epsplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20040715171007.X2308@epsplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes: >Compatibility is apparently unimportant, since the old names were not >simply ttyd#* for most multiport drivers. They were often ttyd##*, where >the first # is for the adapter (card) and the second number is for the >port number within the adaptor. This makes sense. >'i' and 'l' were intentionally not placed at the end, to keep unit >numbers at the end and to keep the initial and lock state devices out >of the normal device namespace (so ttyd* matches only the data devices). This makes less sense because it prevent us from using 'i' and 'l' as tty driver identifiers. >> > I would prefer to stick to the "tty" and "cua" prefixes however. > >Actually, cu* makes considerably more sense and is less of an >anachronism than tty (teletypewriter, remember them? (*)). I think we should be consistent here, I don't like serial ports to have names like "ucom" and "uart", "dcons" etc. >(*) I last saw one in about 1985. I've seen manual typewriters more >recently (had some stored in the gararge until 7 years ago). We have a working ASR33 in our museum and a flexowriter which almost works again. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?10970.1089877690>