On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 07:05:02AM -0500, John Klos wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Based on the rather sketchy information in the documentation for serial
> console support for i386, am I to understand that I have a choice between
> XON/XOFF and hardware handshaking? If this is the case, is there any
> reason why this hasn't been fixed?

Given the UARTs, it is always 'software' handshaking....
Define 'fixed'.

> Making a system unbootable because a serial cable isn't plugged in is
> about as smart as the older BIOS message "Keyboard error - press F1 to
> continue". It should be an option for those that want it, but certainly
> not the default. Is there any reason why this shouldn't be fixed?

Define 'fixed'.

> Regarding XON/XOFF with DIRECT_SERIAL, again, there should be an option to
> NOT have it. Is there any reason why this, too, shouldn't be fixed?

Ah - you want 'no flow control' :-)

If you have a real async terminal, you will find that it needs some
form of flow control in order not to drop characters during certain
operations (eg insert character).

The current i386 bootblocks do have a braindead method of setting
default options (you have to compile a different version).
I have some thoughts on how to fix that, allowing additional serial
line config will then be somewhat easier.

	David

-- 
David Laight: david@l8s.co.uk