Subject: Re: 10th serial port
To: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/15/2000 15:22:01
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Bill Studenmund wrote:
# Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
# From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
# To: Berndt Josef Wulf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
# Cc: Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
# Subject: Re: 10th serial port
# On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Berndt Josef Wulf wrote:
# > I simply can't see any reason why it should be different for reall
# > serial devices... We support the cyclades multi-serial port cards with
# > up to 64 ports... 4 cards will give 256 serial ports and personally
# > I would hate to see the highest port being called tty0255... ;-)
# Well, that's what we went with. Though it's ttyCZ0255 . The reason was
# that we can support more than 4 pci cards, so it's not too hard to get
# more than 256 of these. Given that we'd then need three digits for
# hex-numbered tty's, I decided to go with decimal. The shell script is
# easier, and we aren't loosing much. :-)
Is there *REALLY* a reason to do the CZ thing? I mean, this is
starting to look really ugly. Why do you need the CZ at all?
Why not just do the generic tty kind of thing? Would it be THAT
hard to figure out which tty goes to which port on which card?
I mean, really. Wouldn't just plain old tty000 - ttyfff work? i.e.
just extend by one, maybe two?
I'm not getting something, here...
# Take care,
BSD: preferred by Rocket Scientists and Moms!