d/freebsd-dev
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
01a157ea66
freebsd-dev/sys/dev/uart/uart_dev_sab82532.c

719 lines
17 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
/*
* Copyright (c) 2003 Marcel Moolenaar
* All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
*
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR
* IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
* OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
* IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
* INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
* NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
* DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
* THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
* (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
* THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
*/
#include <sys/cdefs.h>
__FBSDID("$FreeBSD$");
#include <sys/param.h>
#include <sys/systm.h>
#include <sys/bus.h>
#include <sys/conf.h>
#include <machine/bus.h>
#include <dev/uart/uart.h>
#include <dev/uart/uart_cpu.h>
#include <dev/uart/uart_bus.h>
#include <dev/uart/uart_dev_sab82532.h>
#include "uart_if.h"
#define DEFAULT_RCLK 29491200
/*
* NOTE: To allow us to read the baudrate divisor from the chip, we
* copy the value written to the write-only BGR register to an unused
* read-write register. We use TCR for that.
*/
static int
sab82532_delay(struct uart_bas *bas)
{
int divisor, m, n;
uint8_t bgr, ccr2;
bgr = uart_getreg(bas, SAB_TCR);
ccr2 = uart_getreg(bas, SAB_CCR2);
n = (bgr & 0x3f) + 1;
m = (bgr >> 6) | ((ccr2 >> 4) & 0xC);
divisor = n * (1<<m);
/* 1/10th the time to transmit 1 character (estimate). */
return (16000000 * divisor / bas->rclk);
}
static int
sab82532_divisor(int rclk, int baudrate)
{
int act_baud, act_div, divisor;
int error, m, n;
if (baudrate == 0)
return (0);
divisor = (rclk / (baudrate << 3) + 1) >> 1;
if (divisor < 2 || divisor >= 1048576)
return (0);
/* Find the best (N+1,M) pair. */
for (m = 1; m < 15; m++) {
n = divisor / (1<<m);
if (n < 1 || n > 63)
continue;
act_div = n * (1<<m);
act_baud = rclk / (act_div << 4);
/* 10 times error in percent: */
error = ((act_baud - baudrate) * 2000 / baudrate + 1) >> 1;
/* 3.0% maximum error tolerance: */
if (error < -30 || error > 30)
continue;
/* Got it. */
return ((n - 1) | (m << 6));
}
return (0);
}
static void
sab82532_flush(struct uart_bas *bas, int what)
{
if (what & UART_FLUSH_TRANSMITTER) {
while (uart_getreg(bas, SAB_STAR) & SAB_STAR_CEC)
;
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_CMDR, SAB_CMDR_XRES);
uart_barrier(bas);
}
if (what & UART_FLUSH_RECEIVER) {
while (uart_getreg(bas, SAB_STAR) & SAB_STAR_CEC)
;
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_CMDR, SAB_CMDR_RRES);
uart_barrier(bas);
}
}
static int
sab82532_param(struct uart_bas *bas, int baudrate, int databits, int stopbits,
int parity)
{
int divisor;
uint8_t ccr2, dafo;
if (databits >= 8)
dafo = SAB_DAFO_CHL_CS8;
else if (databits == 7)
dafo = SAB_DAFO_CHL_CS7;
else if (databits == 6)
dafo = SAB_DAFO_CHL_CS6;
else
dafo = SAB_DAFO_CHL_CS5;
if (stopbits > 1)
dafo |= SAB_DAFO_STOP;
switch (parity) {
case UART_PARITY_EVEN: dafo |= SAB_DAFO_PAR_EVEN; break;
case UART_PARITY_MARK: dafo |= SAB_DAFO_PAR_MARK; break;
case UART_PARITY_NONE: dafo |= SAB_DAFO_PAR_NONE; break;
case UART_PARITY_ODD: dafo |= SAB_DAFO_PAR_ODD; break;
case UART_PARITY_SPACE: dafo |= SAB_DAFO_PAR_SPACE; break;
default: return (EINVAL);
}
/* Set baudrate. */
if (baudrate > 0) {
divisor = sab82532_divisor(bas->rclk, baudrate);
if (divisor == 0)
return (EINVAL);
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_BGR, divisor & 0xff);
uart_barrier(bas);
/* Allow reading the (n-1,m) tuple from the chip. */
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_TCR, divisor & 0xff);
uart_barrier(bas);
ccr2 = uart_getreg(bas, SAB_CCR2);
ccr2 &= ~(SAB_CCR2_BR9 | SAB_CCR2_BR8);
ccr2 |= (divisor >> 2) & (SAB_CCR2_BR9 | SAB_CCR2_BR8);
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_CCR2, ccr2);
uart_barrier(bas);
}
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_DAFO, dafo);
uart_barrier(bas);
return (0);
}
/*
* Low-level UART interface.
*/
static int sab82532_probe(struct uart_bas *bas);
static void sab82532_init(struct uart_bas *bas, int, int, int, int);
static void sab82532_term(struct uart_bas *bas);
static void sab82532_putc(struct uart_bas *bas, int);
static int sab82532_poll(struct uart_bas *bas);
static int sab82532_getc(struct uart_bas *bas);
struct uart_ops uart_sab82532_ops = {
.probe = sab82532_probe,
.init = sab82532_init,
.term = sab82532_term,
.putc = sab82532_putc,
.poll = sab82532_poll,
.getc = sab82532_getc,
};
static int
sab82532_probe(struct uart_bas *bas)
{
return (0);
}
static void
sab82532_init(struct uart_bas *bas, int baudrate, int databits, int stopbits,
int parity)
{
uint8_t ccr0, pvr;
if (bas->rclk == 0)
bas->rclk = DEFAULT_RCLK;
/*
* Set all pins, except the DTR pins (pin 1 and 2) to be inputs.
* Pin 4 is magical, meaning that I don't know what it does, but
* it too has to be set to output.
*/
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_PCR,
~(SAB_PVR_DTR_A|SAB_PVR_DTR_B|SAB_PVR_MAGIC));
uart_barrier(bas);
/* Disable port interrupts. */
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_PIM, 0xff);
uart_barrier(bas);
/* Interrupts are active low. */
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_IPC, SAB_IPC_ICPL);
uart_barrier(bas);
/* Set DTR. */
pvr = uart_getreg(bas, SAB_PVR);
Revert the introduction of iobase in struct uart_bas. Both the SAB82532 and the Z8530 drivers used the I/O address as a quick and dirty way to determine which channel they operated on, but formalizing this by introducing iobase is not a solution. How for example would a driver know which channel it controls for a multi-channel UART that only has a single I/O range? Instead, add an explicit field, called chan, to struct uart_bas that holds the channel within a device, or 0 otherwise. The chan field is initialized both by the system device probing (i.e. a system console) or it is passed down to uart_bus_probe() by any of the bus front-ends. As such, it impacts all platforms and bus drivers and makes it a rather large commit. Remove the use of iobase in uart_cpu_eqres() for pc98. It is expected that platforms have the capability to compare tag and handle pairs for equality; as to determine whether two pairs access the same device or not. The use of iobase for pc98 makes it impossible to formalize this and turn it into a real newbus function later. This commit reverts uart_cpu_eqres() for pc98 to an unimplemented function. It has to be reimplemented using only the tag and handle fields in struct uart_bas. Rewrite the SAB82532 and Z8530 drivers to use the chan field in struct uart_bas. Remove the IS_CHANNEL_A and IS_CHANNEL_B macros. We don't need to abstract anything anymore. Discussed with: nyan Tested on: i386, ia64, sparc64
2003-09-26 05:14:56 +00:00
switch (bas->chan) {
case 1:
pvr &= ~SAB_PVR_DTR_A;
break;
case 2:
pvr &= ~SAB_PVR_DTR_B;
break;
}
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_PVR, pvr | SAB_PVR_MAGIC);
uart_barrier(bas);
/* power down */
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_CCR0, 0);
uart_barrier(bas);
/* set basic configuration */
ccr0 = SAB_CCR0_MCE|SAB_CCR0_SC_NRZ|SAB_CCR0_SM_ASYNC;
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_CCR0, ccr0);
uart_barrier(bas);
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_CCR1, SAB_CCR1_ODS|SAB_CCR1_BCR|SAB_CCR1_CM_7);
uart_barrier(bas);
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_CCR2, SAB_CCR2_BDF|SAB_CCR2_SSEL|SAB_CCR2_TOE);
uart_barrier(bas);
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_CCR3, 0);
uart_barrier(bas);
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_CCR4, SAB_CCR4_MCK4|SAB_CCR4_EBRG|SAB_CCR4_ICD);
uart_barrier(bas);
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_MODE, SAB_MODE_FCTS|SAB_MODE_RTS|SAB_MODE_RAC);
uart_barrier(bas);
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_RFC, SAB_RFC_DPS|SAB_RFC_RFDF|
SAB_RFC_RFTH_32CHAR);
uart_barrier(bas);
sab82532_param(bas, baudrate, databits, stopbits, parity);
/* Clear interrupts. */
Don't mask TCD in IMR0 when we initialize the channel. Doing so makes it impossible to check the interrupt status bit when we try to get a character in the low level console code.
2004-04-25 04:30:40 +00:00
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_IMR0, (unsigned char)~SAB_IMR0_TCD);
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_IMR1, 0xff);
uart_barrier(bas);
uart_getreg(bas, SAB_ISR0);
uart_getreg(bas, SAB_ISR1);
uart_barrier(bas);
sab82532_flush(bas, UART_FLUSH_TRANSMITTER|UART_FLUSH_RECEIVER);
/* Power up. */
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_CCR0, ccr0|SAB_CCR0_PU);
uart_barrier(bas);
}
static void
sab82532_term(struct uart_bas *bas)
{
uint8_t pvr;
pvr = uart_getreg(bas, SAB_PVR);
Revert the introduction of iobase in struct uart_bas. Both the SAB82532 and the Z8530 drivers used the I/O address as a quick and dirty way to determine which channel they operated on, but formalizing this by introducing iobase is not a solution. How for example would a driver know which channel it controls for a multi-channel UART that only has a single I/O range? Instead, add an explicit field, called chan, to struct uart_bas that holds the channel within a device, or 0 otherwise. The chan field is initialized both by the system device probing (i.e. a system console) or it is passed down to uart_bus_probe() by any of the bus front-ends. As such, it impacts all platforms and bus drivers and makes it a rather large commit. Remove the use of iobase in uart_cpu_eqres() for pc98. It is expected that platforms have the capability to compare tag and handle pairs for equality; as to determine whether two pairs access the same device or not. The use of iobase for pc98 makes it impossible to formalize this and turn it into a real newbus function later. This commit reverts uart_cpu_eqres() for pc98 to an unimplemented function. It has to be reimplemented using only the tag and handle fields in struct uart_bas. Rewrite the SAB82532 and Z8530 drivers to use the chan field in struct uart_bas. Remove the IS_CHANNEL_A and IS_CHANNEL_B macros. We don't need to abstract anything anymore. Discussed with: nyan Tested on: i386, ia64, sparc64
2003-09-26 05:14:56 +00:00
switch (bas->chan) {
case 1:
pvr |= SAB_PVR_DTR_A;
break;
case 2:
pvr |= SAB_PVR_DTR_B;
break;
}
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_PVR, pvr);
uart_barrier(bas);
}
static void
sab82532_putc(struct uart_bas *bas, int c)
{
int delay, limit;
/* 1/10th the time to transmit 1 character (estimate). */
delay = sab82532_delay(bas);
limit = 20;
while ((uart_getreg(bas, SAB_STAR) & SAB_STAR_TEC) && --limit)
DELAY(delay);
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_TIC, c);
limit = 20;
while ((uart_getreg(bas, SAB_STAR) & SAB_STAR_TEC) && --limit)
DELAY(delay);
}
static int
sab82532_poll(struct uart_bas *bas)
{
if (uart_getreg(bas, SAB_STAR) & SAB_STAR_RFNE)
return (sab82532_getc(bas));
return (-1);
}
static int
sab82532_getc(struct uart_bas *bas)
{
int c, delay;
/* 1/10th the time to transmit 1 character (estimate). */
delay = sab82532_delay(bas);
while (!(uart_getreg(bas, SAB_STAR) & SAB_STAR_RFNE))
DELAY(delay);
while (uart_getreg(bas, SAB_STAR) & SAB_STAR_CEC)
;
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_CMDR, SAB_CMDR_RFRD);
uart_barrier(bas);
while (!(uart_getreg(bas, SAB_ISR0) & SAB_ISR0_TCD))
DELAY(delay);
c = uart_getreg(bas, SAB_RFIFO);
uart_barrier(bas);
/* Blow away everything left in the FIFO... */
while (uart_getreg(bas, SAB_STAR) & SAB_STAR_CEC)
;
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_CMDR, SAB_CMDR_RMC);
uart_barrier(bas);
return (c);
}
/*
* High-level UART interface.
*/
struct sab82532_softc {
struct uart_softc base;
};
static int sab82532_bus_attach(struct uart_softc *);
static int sab82532_bus_detach(struct uart_softc *);
static int sab82532_bus_flush(struct uart_softc *, int);
static int sab82532_bus_getsig(struct uart_softc *);
static int sab82532_bus_ioctl(struct uart_softc *, int, intptr_t);
static int sab82532_bus_ipend(struct uart_softc *);
static int sab82532_bus_param(struct uart_softc *, int, int, int, int);
static int sab82532_bus_probe(struct uart_softc *);
static int sab82532_bus_receive(struct uart_softc *);
static int sab82532_bus_setsig(struct uart_softc *, int);
static int sab82532_bus_transmit(struct uart_softc *);
static kobj_method_t sab82532_methods[] = {
KOBJMETHOD(uart_attach, sab82532_bus_attach),
KOBJMETHOD(uart_detach, sab82532_bus_detach),
KOBJMETHOD(uart_flush, sab82532_bus_flush),
KOBJMETHOD(uart_getsig, sab82532_bus_getsig),
KOBJMETHOD(uart_ioctl, sab82532_bus_ioctl),
KOBJMETHOD(uart_ipend, sab82532_bus_ipend),
KOBJMETHOD(uart_param, sab82532_bus_param),
KOBJMETHOD(uart_probe, sab82532_bus_probe),
KOBJMETHOD(uart_receive, sab82532_bus_receive),
KOBJMETHOD(uart_setsig, sab82532_bus_setsig),
KOBJMETHOD(uart_transmit, sab82532_bus_transmit),
{ 0, 0 }
};
struct uart_class uart_sab82532_class = {
"sab82532 class",
sab82532_methods,
sizeof(struct sab82532_softc),
.uc_range = 64,
.uc_rclk = DEFAULT_RCLK
};
#define SIGCHG(c, i, s, d) \
if (c) { \
i |= (i & s) ? s : s | d; \
} else { \
i = (i & s) ? (i & ~s) | d : i; \
}
static int
sab82532_bus_attach(struct uart_softc *sc)
{
struct uart_bas *bas;
uint8_t imr0, imr1;
bas = &sc->sc_bas;
if (sc->sc_sysdev == NULL)
sab82532_init(bas, 9600, 8, 1, UART_PARITY_NONE);
sc->sc_rxfifosz = 32;
sc->sc_txfifosz = 32;
imr0 = SAB_IMR0_TCD|SAB_IMR0_TIME|SAB_IMR0_CDSC|SAB_IMR0_RFO|
SAB_IMR0_RPF;
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_IMR0, 0xff & ~imr0);
imr1 = SAB_IMR1_BRKT|SAB_IMR1_ALLS|SAB_IMR1_CSC;
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_IMR1, 0xff & ~imr1);
uart_barrier(bas);
if (sc->sc_sysdev == NULL)
sab82532_bus_setsig(sc, UART_SIG_DDTR|UART_SIG_DRTS);
(void)sab82532_bus_getsig(sc);
return (0);
}
static int
sab82532_bus_detach(struct uart_softc *sc)
{
struct uart_bas *bas;
bas = &sc->sc_bas;
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_IMR0, 0xff);
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_IMR1, 0xff);
uart_barrier(bas);
uart_getreg(bas, SAB_ISR0);
uart_getreg(bas, SAB_ISR1);
uart_barrier(bas);
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_CCR0, 0);
uart_barrier(bas);
return (0);
}
static int
sab82532_bus_flush(struct uart_softc *sc, int what)
{
Add locking to the hardware drivers. I intended to figure out more precisely where locking would be needed before adding it, but it seems uart(4) draws slightly too much attention to have it without locking for too long. The lock added is a spinlock that protects access to the underlying hardware. As a first and obvious stab at this, each method of the hardware interface grabs the lock. Roughly speaking this serializes the methods. Exceptions are the probe, attach and detach methods.
2003-09-17 01:41:21 +00:00
mtx_lock_spin(&sc->sc_hwmtx);
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
sab82532_flush(&sc->sc_bas, what);
Add locking to the hardware drivers. I intended to figure out more precisely where locking would be needed before adding it, but it seems uart(4) draws slightly too much attention to have it without locking for too long. The lock added is a spinlock that protects access to the underlying hardware. As a first and obvious stab at this, each method of the hardware interface grabs the lock. Roughly speaking this serializes the methods. Exceptions are the probe, attach and detach methods.
2003-09-17 01:41:21 +00:00
mtx_unlock_spin(&sc->sc_hwmtx);
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
return (0);
}
static int
sab82532_bus_getsig(struct uart_softc *sc)
{
struct uart_bas *bas;
uint32_t new, old, sig;
uint8_t pvr, star, vstr;
bas = &sc->sc_bas;
do {
old = sc->sc_hwsig;
sig = old;
Add locking to the hardware drivers. I intended to figure out more precisely where locking would be needed before adding it, but it seems uart(4) draws slightly too much attention to have it without locking for too long. The lock added is a spinlock that protects access to the underlying hardware. As a first and obvious stab at this, each method of the hardware interface grabs the lock. Roughly speaking this serializes the methods. Exceptions are the probe, attach and detach methods.
2003-09-17 01:41:21 +00:00
mtx_lock_spin(&sc->sc_hwmtx);
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
star = uart_getreg(bas, SAB_STAR);
SIGCHG(star & SAB_STAR_CTS, sig, UART_SIG_CTS, UART_SIG_DCTS);
vstr = uart_getreg(bas, SAB_VSTR);
SIGCHG(vstr & SAB_VSTR_CD, sig, UART_SIG_DCD, UART_SIG_DDCD);
pvr = uart_getreg(bas, SAB_PVR);
Revert the introduction of iobase in struct uart_bas. Both the SAB82532 and the Z8530 drivers used the I/O address as a quick and dirty way to determine which channel they operated on, but formalizing this by introducing iobase is not a solution. How for example would a driver know which channel it controls for a multi-channel UART that only has a single I/O range? Instead, add an explicit field, called chan, to struct uart_bas that holds the channel within a device, or 0 otherwise. The chan field is initialized both by the system device probing (i.e. a system console) or it is passed down to uart_bus_probe() by any of the bus front-ends. As such, it impacts all platforms and bus drivers and makes it a rather large commit. Remove the use of iobase in uart_cpu_eqres() for pc98. It is expected that platforms have the capability to compare tag and handle pairs for equality; as to determine whether two pairs access the same device or not. The use of iobase for pc98 makes it impossible to formalize this and turn it into a real newbus function later. This commit reverts uart_cpu_eqres() for pc98 to an unimplemented function. It has to be reimplemented using only the tag and handle fields in struct uart_bas. Rewrite the SAB82532 and Z8530 drivers to use the chan field in struct uart_bas. Remove the IS_CHANNEL_A and IS_CHANNEL_B macros. We don't need to abstract anything anymore. Discussed with: nyan Tested on: i386, ia64, sparc64
2003-09-26 05:14:56 +00:00
switch (bas->chan) {
case 1:
pvr &= SAB_PVR_DSR_A;
break;
case 2:
pvr &= SAB_PVR_DSR_B;
break;
}
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
SIGCHG(~pvr, sig, UART_SIG_DSR, UART_SIG_DDSR);
Add locking to the hardware drivers. I intended to figure out more precisely where locking would be needed before adding it, but it seems uart(4) draws slightly too much attention to have it without locking for too long. The lock added is a spinlock that protects access to the underlying hardware. As a first and obvious stab at this, each method of the hardware interface grabs the lock. Roughly speaking this serializes the methods. Exceptions are the probe, attach and detach methods.
2003-09-17 01:41:21 +00:00
mtx_unlock_spin(&sc->sc_hwmtx);
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
new = sig & ~UART_SIGMASK_DELTA;
} while (!atomic_cmpset_32(&sc->sc_hwsig, old, new));
return (sig);
}
static int
sab82532_bus_ioctl(struct uart_softc *sc, int request, intptr_t data)
{
struct uart_bas *bas;
uint8_t dafo, mode;
Add locking to the hardware drivers. I intended to figure out more precisely where locking would be needed before adding it, but it seems uart(4) draws slightly too much attention to have it without locking for too long. The lock added is a spinlock that protects access to the underlying hardware. As a first and obvious stab at this, each method of the hardware interface grabs the lock. Roughly speaking this serializes the methods. Exceptions are the probe, attach and detach methods.
2003-09-17 01:41:21 +00:00
int error;
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
bas = &sc->sc_bas;
Add locking to the hardware drivers. I intended to figure out more precisely where locking would be needed before adding it, but it seems uart(4) draws slightly too much attention to have it without locking for too long. The lock added is a spinlock that protects access to the underlying hardware. As a first and obvious stab at this, each method of the hardware interface grabs the lock. Roughly speaking this serializes the methods. Exceptions are the probe, attach and detach methods.
2003-09-17 01:41:21 +00:00
error = 0;
mtx_lock_spin(&sc->sc_hwmtx);
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
switch (request) {
case UART_IOCTL_BREAK:
dafo = uart_getreg(bas, SAB_DAFO);
if (data)
dafo |= SAB_DAFO_XBRK;
else
dafo &= ~SAB_DAFO_XBRK;
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_DAFO, dafo);
uart_barrier(bas);
break;
case UART_IOCTL_IFLOW:
mode = uart_getreg(bas, SAB_MODE);
if (data) {
mode &= ~SAB_MODE_RTS;
mode |= SAB_MODE_FRTS;
} else {
mode |= SAB_MODE_RTS;
mode &= ~SAB_MODE_FRTS;
}
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_MODE, mode);
uart_barrier(bas);
break;
case UART_IOCTL_OFLOW:
mode = uart_getreg(bas, SAB_MODE);
if (data)
mode &= ~SAB_MODE_FCTS;
else
mode |= SAB_MODE_FCTS;
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_MODE, mode);
uart_barrier(bas);
break;
default:
Add locking to the hardware drivers. I intended to figure out more precisely where locking would be needed before adding it, but it seems uart(4) draws slightly too much attention to have it without locking for too long. The lock added is a spinlock that protects access to the underlying hardware. As a first and obvious stab at this, each method of the hardware interface grabs the lock. Roughly speaking this serializes the methods. Exceptions are the probe, attach and detach methods.
2003-09-17 01:41:21 +00:00
error = EINVAL;
break;
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
}
Add locking to the hardware drivers. I intended to figure out more precisely where locking would be needed before adding it, but it seems uart(4) draws slightly too much attention to have it without locking for too long. The lock added is a spinlock that protects access to the underlying hardware. As a first and obvious stab at this, each method of the hardware interface grabs the lock. Roughly speaking this serializes the methods. Exceptions are the probe, attach and detach methods.
2003-09-17 01:41:21 +00:00
mtx_unlock_spin(&sc->sc_hwmtx);
return (error);
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
}
static int
sab82532_bus_ipend(struct uart_softc *sc)
{
struct uart_bas *bas;
int ipend;
uint8_t isr0, isr1;
bas = &sc->sc_bas;
Add locking to the hardware drivers. I intended to figure out more precisely where locking would be needed before adding it, but it seems uart(4) draws slightly too much attention to have it without locking for too long. The lock added is a spinlock that protects access to the underlying hardware. As a first and obvious stab at this, each method of the hardware interface grabs the lock. Roughly speaking this serializes the methods. Exceptions are the probe, attach and detach methods.
2003-09-17 01:41:21 +00:00
mtx_lock_spin(&sc->sc_hwmtx);
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
isr0 = uart_getreg(bas, SAB_ISR0);
isr1 = uart_getreg(bas, SAB_ISR1);
uart_barrier(bas);
if (isr0 & SAB_ISR0_TIME) {
while (uart_getreg(bas, SAB_STAR) & SAB_STAR_CEC)
;
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_CMDR, SAB_CMDR_RFRD);
uart_barrier(bas);
}
Add locking to the hardware drivers. I intended to figure out more precisely where locking would be needed before adding it, but it seems uart(4) draws slightly too much attention to have it without locking for too long. The lock added is a spinlock that protects access to the underlying hardware. As a first and obvious stab at this, each method of the hardware interface grabs the lock. Roughly speaking this serializes the methods. Exceptions are the probe, attach and detach methods.
2003-09-17 01:41:21 +00:00
mtx_unlock_spin(&sc->sc_hwmtx);
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
ipend = 0;
if (isr1 & SAB_ISR1_BRKT)
ipend |= UART_IPEND_BREAK;
if (isr0 & SAB_ISR0_RFO)
ipend |= UART_IPEND_OVERRUN;
if (isr0 & (SAB_ISR0_TCD|SAB_ISR0_RPF))
ipend |= UART_IPEND_RXREADY;
if ((isr0 & SAB_ISR0_CDSC) || (isr1 & SAB_ISR1_CSC))
ipend |= UART_IPEND_SIGCHG;
if (isr1 & SAB_ISR1_ALLS)
ipend |= UART_IPEND_TXIDLE;
return (ipend);
}
static int
sab82532_bus_param(struct uart_softc *sc, int baudrate, int databits,
int stopbits, int parity)
{
struct uart_bas *bas;
Add locking to the hardware drivers. I intended to figure out more precisely where locking would be needed before adding it, but it seems uart(4) draws slightly too much attention to have it without locking for too long. The lock added is a spinlock that protects access to the underlying hardware. As a first and obvious stab at this, each method of the hardware interface grabs the lock. Roughly speaking this serializes the methods. Exceptions are the probe, attach and detach methods.
2003-09-17 01:41:21 +00:00
int error;
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
bas = &sc->sc_bas;
Add locking to the hardware drivers. I intended to figure out more precisely where locking would be needed before adding it, but it seems uart(4) draws slightly too much attention to have it without locking for too long. The lock added is a spinlock that protects access to the underlying hardware. As a first and obvious stab at this, each method of the hardware interface grabs the lock. Roughly speaking this serializes the methods. Exceptions are the probe, attach and detach methods.
2003-09-17 01:41:21 +00:00
mtx_lock_spin(&sc->sc_hwmtx);
error = sab82532_param(bas, baudrate, databits, stopbits, parity);
mtx_unlock_spin(&sc->sc_hwmtx);
return (error);
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
}
static int
sab82532_bus_probe(struct uart_softc *sc)
{
char buf[80];
Revert the introduction of iobase in struct uart_bas. Both the SAB82532 and the Z8530 drivers used the I/O address as a quick and dirty way to determine which channel they operated on, but formalizing this by introducing iobase is not a solution. How for example would a driver know which channel it controls for a multi-channel UART that only has a single I/O range? Instead, add an explicit field, called chan, to struct uart_bas that holds the channel within a device, or 0 otherwise. The chan field is initialized both by the system device probing (i.e. a system console) or it is passed down to uart_bus_probe() by any of the bus front-ends. As such, it impacts all platforms and bus drivers and makes it a rather large commit. Remove the use of iobase in uart_cpu_eqres() for pc98. It is expected that platforms have the capability to compare tag and handle pairs for equality; as to determine whether two pairs access the same device or not. The use of iobase for pc98 makes it impossible to formalize this and turn it into a real newbus function later. This commit reverts uart_cpu_eqres() for pc98 to an unimplemented function. It has to be reimplemented using only the tag and handle fields in struct uart_bas. Rewrite the SAB82532 and Z8530 drivers to use the chan field in struct uart_bas. Remove the IS_CHANNEL_A and IS_CHANNEL_B macros. We don't need to abstract anything anymore. Discussed with: nyan Tested on: i386, ia64, sparc64
2003-09-26 05:14:56 +00:00
const char *vstr;
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
int error;
Revert the introduction of iobase in struct uart_bas. Both the SAB82532 and the Z8530 drivers used the I/O address as a quick and dirty way to determine which channel they operated on, but formalizing this by introducing iobase is not a solution. How for example would a driver know which channel it controls for a multi-channel UART that only has a single I/O range? Instead, add an explicit field, called chan, to struct uart_bas that holds the channel within a device, or 0 otherwise. The chan field is initialized both by the system device probing (i.e. a system console) or it is passed down to uart_bus_probe() by any of the bus front-ends. As such, it impacts all platforms and bus drivers and makes it a rather large commit. Remove the use of iobase in uart_cpu_eqres() for pc98. It is expected that platforms have the capability to compare tag and handle pairs for equality; as to determine whether two pairs access the same device or not. The use of iobase for pc98 makes it impossible to formalize this and turn it into a real newbus function later. This commit reverts uart_cpu_eqres() for pc98 to an unimplemented function. It has to be reimplemented using only the tag and handle fields in struct uart_bas. Rewrite the SAB82532 and Z8530 drivers to use the chan field in struct uart_bas. Remove the IS_CHANNEL_A and IS_CHANNEL_B macros. We don't need to abstract anything anymore. Discussed with: nyan Tested on: i386, ia64, sparc64
2003-09-26 05:14:56 +00:00
char ch;
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
error = sab82532_probe(&sc->sc_bas);
if (error)
return (error);
Revert the introduction of iobase in struct uart_bas. Both the SAB82532 and the Z8530 drivers used the I/O address as a quick and dirty way to determine which channel they operated on, but formalizing this by introducing iobase is not a solution. How for example would a driver know which channel it controls for a multi-channel UART that only has a single I/O range? Instead, add an explicit field, called chan, to struct uart_bas that holds the channel within a device, or 0 otherwise. The chan field is initialized both by the system device probing (i.e. a system console) or it is passed down to uart_bus_probe() by any of the bus front-ends. As such, it impacts all platforms and bus drivers and makes it a rather large commit. Remove the use of iobase in uart_cpu_eqres() for pc98. It is expected that platforms have the capability to compare tag and handle pairs for equality; as to determine whether two pairs access the same device or not. The use of iobase for pc98 makes it impossible to formalize this and turn it into a real newbus function later. This commit reverts uart_cpu_eqres() for pc98 to an unimplemented function. It has to be reimplemented using only the tag and handle fields in struct uart_bas. Rewrite the SAB82532 and Z8530 drivers to use the chan field in struct uart_bas. Remove the IS_CHANNEL_A and IS_CHANNEL_B macros. We don't need to abstract anything anymore. Discussed with: nyan Tested on: i386, ia64, sparc64
2003-09-26 05:14:56 +00:00
ch = sc->sc_bas.chan - 1 + 'A';
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
switch (uart_getreg(&sc->sc_bas, SAB_VSTR) & SAB_VSTR_VMASK) {
case SAB_VSTR_V_1:
vstr = "v1";
break;
case SAB_VSTR_V_2:
vstr = "v2";
break;
case SAB_VSTR_V_32:
vstr = "v3.2";
sc->sc_hwiflow = 0; /* CTS doesn't work with RFC:RFDF. */
sc->sc_hwoflow = 1;
break;
default:
vstr = "v4?";
break;
}
Revert the introduction of iobase in struct uart_bas. Both the SAB82532 and the Z8530 drivers used the I/O address as a quick and dirty way to determine which channel they operated on, but formalizing this by introducing iobase is not a solution. How for example would a driver know which channel it controls for a multi-channel UART that only has a single I/O range? Instead, add an explicit field, called chan, to struct uart_bas that holds the channel within a device, or 0 otherwise. The chan field is initialized both by the system device probing (i.e. a system console) or it is passed down to uart_bus_probe() by any of the bus front-ends. As such, it impacts all platforms and bus drivers and makes it a rather large commit. Remove the use of iobase in uart_cpu_eqres() for pc98. It is expected that platforms have the capability to compare tag and handle pairs for equality; as to determine whether two pairs access the same device or not. The use of iobase for pc98 makes it impossible to formalize this and turn it into a real newbus function later. This commit reverts uart_cpu_eqres() for pc98 to an unimplemented function. It has to be reimplemented using only the tag and handle fields in struct uart_bas. Rewrite the SAB82532 and Z8530 drivers to use the chan field in struct uart_bas. Remove the IS_CHANNEL_A and IS_CHANNEL_B macros. We don't need to abstract anything anymore. Discussed with: nyan Tested on: i386, ia64, sparc64
2003-09-26 05:14:56 +00:00
snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "SAB 82532 %s, channel %c", vstr, ch);
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
device_set_desc_copy(sc->sc_dev, buf);
return (0);
}
static int
sab82532_bus_receive(struct uart_softc *sc)
{
struct uart_bas *bas;
int i, rbcl, xc;
uint8_t s;
bas = &sc->sc_bas;
Add locking to the hardware drivers. I intended to figure out more precisely where locking would be needed before adding it, but it seems uart(4) draws slightly too much attention to have it without locking for too long. The lock added is a spinlock that protects access to the underlying hardware. As a first and obvious stab at this, each method of the hardware interface grabs the lock. Roughly speaking this serializes the methods. Exceptions are the probe, attach and detach methods.
2003-09-17 01:41:21 +00:00
mtx_lock_spin(&sc->sc_hwmtx);
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
if (uart_getreg(bas, SAB_STAR) & SAB_STAR_RFNE) {
rbcl = uart_getreg(bas, SAB_RBCL) & 31;
if (rbcl == 0)
rbcl = 32;
for (i = 0; i < rbcl; i += 2) {
if (uart_rx_full(sc)) {
sc->sc_rxbuf[sc->sc_rxput] = UART_STAT_OVERRUN;
break;
}
xc = uart_getreg(bas, SAB_RFIFO);
s = uart_getreg(bas, SAB_RFIFO + 1);
if (s & SAB_RSTAT_FE)
xc |= UART_STAT_FRAMERR;
if (s & SAB_RSTAT_PE)
xc |= UART_STAT_PARERR;
uart_rx_put(sc, xc);
}
}
while (uart_getreg(bas, SAB_STAR) & SAB_STAR_CEC)
;
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_CMDR, SAB_CMDR_RMC);
uart_barrier(bas);
Add locking to the hardware drivers. I intended to figure out more precisely where locking would be needed before adding it, but it seems uart(4) draws slightly too much attention to have it without locking for too long. The lock added is a spinlock that protects access to the underlying hardware. As a first and obvious stab at this, each method of the hardware interface grabs the lock. Roughly speaking this serializes the methods. Exceptions are the probe, attach and detach methods.
2003-09-17 01:41:21 +00:00
mtx_unlock_spin(&sc->sc_hwmtx);
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
return (0);
}
static int
sab82532_bus_setsig(struct uart_softc *sc, int sig)
{
struct uart_bas *bas;
uint32_t new, old;
uint8_t mode, pvr;
bas = &sc->sc_bas;
do {
old = sc->sc_hwsig;
new = old;
if (sig & UART_SIG_DDTR) {
SIGCHG(sig & UART_SIG_DTR, new, UART_SIG_DTR,
UART_SIG_DDTR);
}
if (sig & UART_SIG_DRTS) {
SIGCHG(sig & UART_SIG_RTS, new, UART_SIG_RTS,
UART_SIG_DRTS);
}
} while (!atomic_cmpset_32(&sc->sc_hwsig, old, new));
Add locking to the hardware drivers. I intended to figure out more precisely where locking would be needed before adding it, but it seems uart(4) draws slightly too much attention to have it without locking for too long. The lock added is a spinlock that protects access to the underlying hardware. As a first and obvious stab at this, each method of the hardware interface grabs the lock. Roughly speaking this serializes the methods. Exceptions are the probe, attach and detach methods.
2003-09-17 01:41:21 +00:00
mtx_lock_spin(&sc->sc_hwmtx);
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
/* Set DTR pin. */
pvr = uart_getreg(bas, SAB_PVR);
Revert the introduction of iobase in struct uart_bas. Both the SAB82532 and the Z8530 drivers used the I/O address as a quick and dirty way to determine which channel they operated on, but formalizing this by introducing iobase is not a solution. How for example would a driver know which channel it controls for a multi-channel UART that only has a single I/O range? Instead, add an explicit field, called chan, to struct uart_bas that holds the channel within a device, or 0 otherwise. The chan field is initialized both by the system device probing (i.e. a system console) or it is passed down to uart_bus_probe() by any of the bus front-ends. As such, it impacts all platforms and bus drivers and makes it a rather large commit. Remove the use of iobase in uart_cpu_eqres() for pc98. It is expected that platforms have the capability to compare tag and handle pairs for equality; as to determine whether two pairs access the same device or not. The use of iobase for pc98 makes it impossible to formalize this and turn it into a real newbus function later. This commit reverts uart_cpu_eqres() for pc98 to an unimplemented function. It has to be reimplemented using only the tag and handle fields in struct uart_bas. Rewrite the SAB82532 and Z8530 drivers to use the chan field in struct uart_bas. Remove the IS_CHANNEL_A and IS_CHANNEL_B macros. We don't need to abstract anything anymore. Discussed with: nyan Tested on: i386, ia64, sparc64
2003-09-26 05:14:56 +00:00
switch (bas->chan) {
case 1:
if (new & UART_SIG_DTR)
pvr &= ~SAB_PVR_DTR_A;
else
pvr |= SAB_PVR_DTR_A;
break;
case 2:
if (new & UART_SIG_DTR)
pvr &= ~SAB_PVR_DTR_B;
else
pvr |= SAB_PVR_DTR_B;
break;
}
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_PVR, pvr);
/* Set RTS pin. */
mode = uart_getreg(bas, SAB_MODE);
if (new & UART_SIG_RTS)
mode &= ~SAB_MODE_FRTS;
else
mode |= SAB_MODE_FRTS;
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_MODE, mode);
uart_barrier(bas);
Add locking to the hardware drivers. I intended to figure out more precisely where locking would be needed before adding it, but it seems uart(4) draws slightly too much attention to have it without locking for too long. The lock added is a spinlock that protects access to the underlying hardware. As a first and obvious stab at this, each method of the hardware interface grabs the lock. Roughly speaking this serializes the methods. Exceptions are the probe, attach and detach methods.
2003-09-17 01:41:21 +00:00
mtx_unlock_spin(&sc->sc_hwmtx);
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
return (0);
}
static int
sab82532_bus_transmit(struct uart_softc *sc)
{
struct uart_bas *bas;
int i;
bas = &sc->sc_bas;
Add locking to the hardware drivers. I intended to figure out more precisely where locking would be needed before adding it, but it seems uart(4) draws slightly too much attention to have it without locking for too long. The lock added is a spinlock that protects access to the underlying hardware. As a first and obvious stab at this, each method of the hardware interface grabs the lock. Roughly speaking this serializes the methods. Exceptions are the probe, attach and detach methods.
2003-09-17 01:41:21 +00:00
mtx_lock_spin(&sc->sc_hwmtx);
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
while (!(uart_getreg(bas, SAB_STAR) & SAB_STAR_XFW))
;
for (i = 0; i < sc->sc_txdatasz; i++)
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_XFIFO + i, sc->sc_txbuf[i]);
uart_barrier(bas);
while (uart_getreg(bas, SAB_STAR) & SAB_STAR_CEC)
;
uart_setreg(bas, SAB_CMDR, SAB_CMDR_XF);
sc->sc_txbusy = 1;
Add locking to the hardware drivers. I intended to figure out more precisely where locking would be needed before adding it, but it seems uart(4) draws slightly too much attention to have it without locking for too long. The lock added is a spinlock that protects access to the underlying hardware. As a first and obvious stab at this, each method of the hardware interface grabs the lock. Roughly speaking this serializes the methods. Exceptions are the probe, attach and detach methods.
2003-09-17 01:41:21 +00:00
mtx_unlock_spin(&sc->sc_hwmtx);
The uart(4) driver is an universal driver for various UART hardware. It improves on sio(4) in the following areas: o Fully newbusified to allow for memory mapped I/O. This is a must for ia64 and sparc64, o Machine dependent code to take full advantage of machine and firm- ware specific ways to define serial consoles and/or debug ports. o Hardware abstraction layer to allow the driver to be used with various UARTs, such as the well-known ns8250 family of UARTs, the Siemens sab82532 or the Zilog Z8530. This is especially important for pc98 and sparc64 where it's common to have different UARTs, o The notion of system devices to unkludge low-level consoles and remote gdb ports and provides the mechanics necessary to support the keyboard on sparc64 (which is UART based). o The notion of a kernel interface so that a UART can be tied to something other than the well-known TTY interface. This is needed on sparc64 to present the user with a device and ioctl handling suitable for a keyboard, but also allows us to cleanly hide an UART when used as a debug port. Following is a list of features and bugs/flaws specific to the ns8250 family of UARTs as compared to their support in sio(4): o The uart(4) driver determines the FIFO size and automaticly takes advantages of larger FIFOs and/or additional features. Note that since I don't have sufficient access to 16[679]5x UARTs, hardware flow control has not been enabled. This is almost trivial to do, provided one can test. The downside of this is that broken UARTs are more likely to not work correctly with uart(4). The need for tunables or knobs may be large enough to warrant their creation. o The uart(4) driver does not share the same bumpy history as sio(4) and will therefore not provide the necessary hooks, tweaks, quirks or work-arounds to deal with once common hardware. To that extend, uart(4) supports a subset of the UARTs that sio(4) supports. The question before us is whether the subset is sufficient for current hardware. o There is no support for multiport UARTs in uart(4). The decision behind this is that uart(4) deals with one EIA RS232-C interface. Packaging of multiple interfaces in a single chip or on a single expansion board is beyond the scope of uart(4) and is now mostly left for puc(4) to deal with. Lack of hardware made it impossible to actually implement such a dependency other than is present for the dual channel SAB82532 and Z8350 SCCs. The current list of missing features is: o No configuration capabilities. A set of tunables and sysctls is being worked out. There are likely not going to be any or much compile-time knobs. Such configuration does not fit well with current hardware. o No support for the PPS API. This is partly dependent on the ability to configure uart(4) and partly dependent on having sufficient information to implement it properly. As usual, the manpage is present but lacks the attention the software has gotten.
2003-09-06 23:13:47 +00:00
return (0);
}
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink