From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Dec 12 16:52:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA27691 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:52:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from tulpi.interconnect.com.au (root@tulpi.interconnect.com.au [192.189.54.18]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id QAA27681 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:52:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from solsbury-hill.home (acc5-ppp37.mel.interconnect.com.au [210.8.0.165]) by tulpi.interconnect.com.au with ESMTP id LAA20264 (8.7.6/IDA-1.6 for ); Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:52:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (suttonj@localhost) by solsbury-hill.home (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA00272 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:30:28 +1100 (EST) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:30:21 +1100 (EST) From: Joel Sutton X-Sender: suttonj@solsbury-hill.home Reply-To: Joel Sutton To: FreeBSD Hackers Subject: My Banksia Internal Modem - sio driver Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hi, I'm sure this is a common subject so I'll try to keep it brief. I'm running 2.1.5 with 4 serial ports - 1 internal modem. Up until today I have been having all sorts of problems getting the sio driver to recognise my internal modem on a regular basis. Sometimes it would recognise it (after numerous reboots) and sometimes not. So I did some searching of the mail archives and realised that I should use the 0x80 flag to see what was happening (should have read the sio man page...). I suddenly found that it was failing consistently on the 6th probe: /kernel: sio1: probe test 6 failed Thinking I had nothing to loose I then changed the source for sio so that the sixth probe always returned a successful result. So far I haven't had any problems more internal modem problems or problems with my other 3 serial ports. Device drivers are definitely way above my level of programming skill so what I'm wondering is - Is it likely that I may create any other problems by doing this? Could adding extra DELAY statements achieve a similar result more cleanly?? Thanks for your patience, Joel...