In message: <993E865A-A426-4036-9E09-A87D7474DE80_at_mac.com> Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt_at_mac.com> writes: : : On Jul 3, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Sam Leffler wrote: : : >> But I just got told sio(4) is required for pc98, because uart(4) is : >> not : >> supported there. This means I'll seriously consider porting sio(4) : >> one : >> of these days. It's no biggie, even though I think someone could : >> better : >> take the effort to extend uart(4). : >> : > : > I would suggest first investigating how difficult it is to port uart : > to pc98. Given that we're broadening our platform support having a : > single serial driver seems preferable. : : I looked into it in 2003 but since I don't have any hardware, : I wasn't the one able to do it. I think the fundamental problem : is that the BRG is not part of the UART itself and needs a : separate handle or even (tag, handle) pair to access. That's as : far as I know the only big thing about the work. : : For me not having access to the hardware is a showstopper for : looking into it myself. Do you need physical access? I have a pc98 machine I can put back on the network. It has the 8251 chip in it. It also has a 16550 part as well since it is a later model which had both... I believe that uart works for the 16550 part, but haven't tried it lately... WarnerReceived on Fri Jul 04 2008 - 10:36:23 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:32 UTC