From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 1 22:49:34 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 1A5461065674 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:49:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xcllnt@mac.com) Received: from smtpoutm.mac.com (smtpoutm.mac.com [17.148.16.80]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFA1B8FC2A for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:49:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xcllnt@mac.com) Received: from asmtp012-bge351000.mac.com (asmtp012-bge351000 [10.150.69.75]) by smtpoutm.mac.com (Xserve/smtpout017/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id m61MnXGw013462 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:49:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Received: from macbook-pro.jnpr.net (natint3.juniper.net [66.129.224.36]) by asmtp012.mac.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-6.03 (built Mar 14 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0K3C00IH0NEK7300@asmtp012.mac.com> for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-id: From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Alexey Shuvaev In-reply-to: <20080701213005.GA94030@wep4017.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:49:32 -0700 References: <20080701181358.GA93601@wep4017.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> <20080701213005.GA94030@wep4017.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: puc(4) man page update? 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: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:49:34 -0000 On Jul 1, 2008, at 2:30 PM, Alexey Shuvaev wrote: > So, one can still use puc(4) + sio(4) (by removing, for example, > uart(4) from the kernel)? Yes. > Then COM_MULTIPORT is not 100% obsolete yet. Really? :-) >>> Attached is a draft of a patch to share/man/man4/puc.4 but maybe >>> more >>> work is required (regarding COM_MULTIPORT and sio(4) man page...). >> >> I would not mention COM_MULTIPORT in the puc(4) manpage >> at all. Neither sio(4)... >> > I thougt about removing COM_MULTIPORT from the sio(4) both man page > and source code. If one can still use it, let it be so. COM_MULTIPORT is just confusing. There are PCI cards that puc(4) supports and to which puc(4) sio(4) can attach and that don't report interrupts in a way compatible with COM_MULTIPORT. In those cases puc(4)+sio(4) is broken, but puc(4)+uart(4) works. Really, we should just drop sio(4), focus on a single serial driver that just works and works everywhere. -- Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt@mac.com