From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jan 11 16:11:02 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA21900 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:11:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns2.cetlink.net (root@ns2.cetlink.net [209.54.54.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA21875 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:10:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jak@cetlink.net) Received: from hot1.auctionfever.com (ts1-cltnc-22.cetlink.net [209.54.58.22]) by ns2.cetlink.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA22290; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 19:10:46 -0500 (EST) From: jak@cetlink.net (John Kelly) To: dmaddox@scsn.net Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 16650 Support(?) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 01:11:32 GMT Message-ID: <34bf6bef.3609890@mail.cetlink.net> References: <19980111150619.48677@scsn.net> <34b95e60.140553@mail.cetlink.net> <34B957B6.AEC4CDAF@scsn.net> In-Reply-To: <34B957B6.AEC4CDAF@scsn.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.01/16.397 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by hub.freebsd.org id QAA21877 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 18:37:26 -0500, dmaddox@scsn.net (Donald J. Maddox) wrote: > Hmmm... I originally configured it as a basic 16550, since >sio apparently doesn't have any support for >115.2Kbps anyway, but >even then it looked like the baud rate just couldn't be changed >from 9600. I suppose it's possible that the LavaPort's interface >is non-standard(?) Anybody have any experience with this card? A 650 is a 650 no matter what card it's on. All programming of the registers takes place on the UART, not the card. Perhaps you are doing something else wrong. I have 650's on a Byterunner card working with my ISDN at 230k. SIO programs the UART with a value of "1" which is 115,200 for a 1x clock, but 230,400 for a 2x clock. The clock is controlled by a jumper on the card and SIO doesn't care. It only cares about writing the value "1" to the appropriate UART register. There is more to the story because of the clock selection bit in the 650 UART, but the details should be irrelevant for your purposes. John