On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 11:08:02PM +0930, Berndt Josef Wulf wrote:
> True, but...
> 
> Are there any reasons why the second digit isn't used? In this
> case ttyff would become port 256, more than enough to build a fancy
> terminal server.
> 
> To my knowledge, there are no definitions for ttyaX, ttybX, ttycX,
> ttydX, ttyeX and ttyfX (X being a numerical value).
> 
> So why not defining serial ports in the range of tty[0..f][0..f]?

I think we should avoid letters for true serial ports, letters have been
used for various pseudo-tty already (ttyp0, ttyv0, ttyE0, I think we
also have ttyC0 around).

--
Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI.           Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr
--