Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:06:48 -0500 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: uart vs sio differences ? Message-ID: <200812081906.mB8J6oha042222@lava.sentex.ca> In-Reply-To: <ED8BC24F-EAC3-4266-AF54-4C6262DDC156@mac.com> References: <200812081621.mB8GLMxB041498@lava.sentex.ca> <ED8BC24F-EAC3-4266-AF54-4C6262DDC156@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:49 PM 12/8/2008, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
>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...
Hi,
Yes, flow control is supposed to be disabled. When we hook
up a serial line analyzer, the behaviour is rather odd. We only use
1200bps, so I dont think its a speed issue. Also, as part of the
protocol, we poll the other side. We send a 3 byte poll, which the
Windows side always sees, and it sends us back a 1 byte answer, which
we see fine. However, when the Windows side has "something to say",
it will send a different 1 byte response (which we get) and then the
data, which is approximately 100 to 200 bytes which we only get about
30 bytes of.
---Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200812081906.mB8J6oha042222>