Subject: Re: com(4) and speeds >115200
To: Daniel Carosone <>
From: Daniel Carosone <>
List: current-users
Date: 10/01/2004 10:56:21
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:17:37AM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 02:32:35PM -0500, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> >=20
> > Try building a current kernel with options COM_16650 (COM16650 on 2.0).
> Well, this is interesting.  I saw that option in the sources, but my
> eyes misled me to read it as 16550 and I just assumed it was on.
> However, cu still doesn't accept -s >115200, nor does stty.
> EINVAL from tcsetattr.

And on further reading, I can't really see how it makes a difference
for speed; the #ifdef'd code is only at probe time, and results in a
sc->sc_fifolen =3D 32, but nothing that I can see affects the speed or
the frequency (like is done for the HAYESP).

Likewise, comspeed() takes a type argument that goes unused, even if
sc_type were set differently for 16650, which it isn't.

Is the 16650 support incomplete?

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (NetBSD)