that can be used to check whether receive data is ready, i.e. whether
the subsequent call of uart_poll() should return a char, and unlike
uart_poll() doesn't actually receive data.
- Remove the device-specific implementations of uart_poll() and implement
uart_poll() in terms of uart_getc() and the newly added uart_rxready()
in order to minimize code duplication.
- In sunkbd(4) take advantage of uart_rxready() and use it to implement
the polled mode part of sunkbd_check() so we don't need to buffer a
potentially read char in the softc.
- Fix some mis-indentation in sunkbd_read_char().
Discussed with: marcel
divisor. This allows us to set the line speed to the maximum
of 1/4 of the device clock.
o Disable the baudrate generator before programming the line
settings, including baudrate, and enable it afterwards.
fact that access to RR0 does not need a prior write to the register
index because the index always reverts to 0 after the indexed register
has been accessed.
Typically when a RR or WR is to accessed, one programs the index (which
is a write to the control register), followed by a read or write to the
actual indexed register (a read pr write to the same control register).
When this non-atomic sequence is interrupted after having written the
index and low-level console I/O is done in that situation, the write to
program the index will actually write to the indexed register and nuke
state. This almost always yields a wedge.
By not programming the index register and instead just reading from RR0,
the worst case scenario is non-fatal. For if we don't actually read from
RR0 but some other register we get an invalid status, which may lead us
to conclude that the transit data register is empty when it's not or that
the receive data register contains data when it doesn't. Hence, we may
lose an output character or get a sporadic input character, but given
the situation this is a non-issue.
Full serialization is not possible due to the fact that this code needs
to work from DDB and before mutex initialization has happened.
In collaboration with: kris@, marius@
Tested by: kris@
MFC after: 1 day
X-MFC: 5.4-RELEASE candidate
engineering the pending interrupt sources from the current
state of the controller. For channel A we can always read the
interrupt pending register (RR3). For channel B we can read
the interrupt vector register (RR2) because it contains the
modified vector and thus includes the interrupt source.
Since we currently need puc(4) for the Z8530, we know that
the interrupt handler for both channels will be called and
thus that RR3 will always be read at least once, even if ch A
has no pending interrupt.
NOTE: The modified interrupt vector has no value that represent
a lack of pending interrupt for channel B. That is, the
value read when no interrupts are pending is the same as the
value for the special receive condition. Fortunately, we don't
actually have to depend on that interrupt source. This does
mean that we need to properly handle the overflow condition,
when we read received character from the chip.
o The DSR signal is represented by the SYNC bit in the external
status register (RR0). We now properly track DSR.
o It's save to enable the external/status interrupt source. We
now get interrupts when line signals (DSR, DCD or CTS) change.
Problems fixes:
o interrupt storms.
o blocked open(2).
o lack of (hardware) flow control.
o unable to report DSR.
MFC after: 5 days
not as a pending interrupt status, but as a matter of status quo.
Consequently, when there's no data to be transmitted the condition
is not cleared and uart_intr() is stuck in an infinite loop trying
to clear the UART_IPEND_TXIDLE status.
The z8530_bus_ipend() function is changed to return idle only once
after having sent any data.
The root cause for this problem is that we cannot use the interrupt
status bits of the SCC itself. The register that holds the interrupt
status can only be accessed by channel A and holds the status for
both channels. Using the interrupt status register would complicate
the driver because we need to synchronize access to the SCC between
the channels.
Elementary testing: marius
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
an UART interface could get stuck when a new interrupt condition
arose while servicing a previous interrupt. Since an interrupt was
already pending, no new interrupt would be triggered.
Avoid infinite recursion by flushing the Rx FIFO and marking an
overrun condition when we could not move the data from the Rx
FIFO to the receive buffer in toto. Failure to flush the Rx FIFO
would leave the Rx ready condition pending.
Note that the SAB 82532 already did this due to the nature of the
chip.
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.
from the SAB82532 and the Z8530 hardware drivers by introducing
uart_cpu_busaddr(). The assumption is not true on pc98 where
bus_space_handle_t is a pointer to a structure.
The uart_cpu_busaddr() function will return the bus address
corresponding the tag and handle given to it by the BAS.
WARNING: the intend of the function is STRICTLY to allow hardware
drivers to determine which logical channel they control and is NOT
to be used for actual I/O. It is therefore EXPLICITLY allowed that
uart_cpu_busaddr() returns only the lower 8 bits of the address
and garbage in all other bits. No mistakes...
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.
