Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 11:07:16 +1000 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: hackers@freebsd.org, peter@nmti.com Subject: Re: Gritching about XFree86 and serial port naming Message-ID: <199508300107.LAA10577@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>I'm helping a bloke here set up FreeBSD, and man the serial ports are hard >to explain. >Why, oh why, is the CU device for "ttyd0" called "cuaa0" instead of "cuad0"? >Or making it ttya0? It was to give a unique name when the name is truncated to 2 characters for printing by ps, etc. There isn't enough namespace for unique names, so I wanted to change to cuad0, but the names have already changed too oftenand further changes are likely and there wasn't much time before 2.0.5R. >I understand that going to alpha names makes some sense, but it really doesn't >look good when they're so inconsistent. The old names had the virtue of >making sense "oh, sio is the serial I/O driver...". When did they make sense? They were never called sio* or ttys*. `s' would have been a bad name anyway since sio is actually the ns(x)xx50 driver. This point becomes more important when there are half a dozen other Serial IO drivers with different broken naming schemes. >For 2.1, can we go back to at least making the tty and cua devices have the >same identifiers? When did they have the same identifiers? If you say that tty00 and cua00 have the same identifiers, then I'll say that `0' is not an identifier :-). >Oh yeh, the docs should have something in big bold letters about linking >/dev/mouse to /dev/cuaa0 under whatever name it ends up as... That would be bogus. X works with the vanilla POSIX port ttyd0 and always has. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199508300107.LAA10577>