Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:56:44 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: John E Hein <jhein@timing.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tt_ioctl Message-ID: <44321.1207738604@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:40:32 CST." <18428.624.490619.248235@gromit.timing.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <18428.624.490619.248235@gromit.timing.com>, John E Hein writes: >I guess I'm leaning toward a separate >uftdi0.ctl minor device despite what the sourceforge >linux driver does. That would be my inclination too. We had something slightly similar with a sync/async board at one point. The driver never made it into the tree for a number of reasons, but the same problem was present: We have one physical connector, and it can either be a tty or something else. By adding a uftdi0.ctl (or whatever you name it, "uftdi0" is probably even preferable) you get a separate and direct channel to the device, and you can issue whatever IOCTLs, generic (preferably) or device specific, it takes to make the port do whatever non-tty task it is you want. That seems like the sensible model to me. > > Otherwise, use ugen, it's easier, simpler and likely faster. > >You can't use ugen, [...] Forget that then. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44321.1207738604>