From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 8 18:49:52 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36168106564A for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:49:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xcllnt@mac.com) Received: from asmtpout022.mac.com (asmtpout022.mac.com [17.148.16.97]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E908FC08 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:49:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xcllnt@mac.com) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Received: from mahamuni-t43.jnpr.net (natint3.juniper.net [66.129.224.36]) by asmtp022.mac.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.03 (built Aug 7 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0KBK00M6VMZ36D70@asmtp022.mac.com> for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:49:51 -0800 (PST) Message-id: From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Mike Tancsa In-reply-to: <200812081621.mB8GLMxB041498@lava.sentex.ca> Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:49:51 -0800 References: <200812081621.mB8GLMxB041498@lava.sentex.ca> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: uart vs sio differences ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:49:52 -0000 On Dec 8, 2008, at 8:21 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote: > Unfortunately, we only control the FreeBSD side of things and the > other end of the serial connection is a windows app we dont > control. Everything seems to work ok from our side, but the other > side which we dont control seems to be missing some things we are > sending it and vice versa. It looks to me that flow-control is disabled, is that right? Not only does uart(4) make use of the larger buffer of the hardware, it's also more efficient under puc(4) than sio(4) is because of the use of the serdev I/F. It's possible that the receiver can not keep up when uart(4) is used. A serial line analyzer should tell you more... FYI, -- Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt@mac.com