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) 2001 by Thomas Moestl <tmm@FreeBSD.org>.
|
|
|
|
|
* 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 OR CONTRIBUTORS 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/kernel.h>
|
2004-06-03 06:10:02 +00:00
|
|
|
#include <sys/module.h>
|
- Introduce an ofw_bus kobj-interface for retrieving the OFW node and a
subset ("compatible", "device_type", "model" and "name") of the standard
properties in drivers for devices on Open Firmware supported busses. The
standard properties "reg", "interrupts" und "address" are not covered by
this interface because they are only of interest in the respective bridge
code. There's a remaining standard property "status" which is unclear how
to support properly but which also isn't used in FreeBSD at present.
This ofw_bus kobj-interface allows to replace the various (ebus_get_node(),
ofw_pci_get_node(), etc.) and partially inconsistent (central_get_type()
vs. sbus_get_device_type(), etc.) existing IVAR ones with a common one.
This in turn allows to simplify and remove code-duplication in drivers for
devices that can hang off of more than one OFW supported bus.
- Convert the sparc64 Central, EBus, FHC, PCI and SBus bus drivers and the
drivers for their children to use the ofw_bus kobj-interface. The IVAR-
interfaces of the Central, EBus and FHC are entirely replaced by this. The
PCI bus driver used its own kobj-interface and now also uses the ofw_bus
one. The IVARs special to the SBus, e.g. for retrieving the burst size,
remain.
Beware: this causes an ABI-breakage for modules of drivers which used the
IVAR-interfaces, i.e. esp(4), hme(4), isp(4) and uart(4), which need to be
recompiled.
The style-inconsistencies introduced in some of the bus drivers will be
fixed by tmm@ in a generic clean-up of the respective drivers later (he
requested to add the changes in the "new" style).
- Convert the powerpc MacIO bus driver and the drivers for its children to
use the ofw_bus kobj-interface. This invloves removing the IVARs related
to the "reg" property which were unused and a leftover from the NetBSD
origini of the code. There's no ABI-breakage caused by this because none
of these driver are currently built as modules.
There are other powerpc bus drivers which can be converted to the ofw_bus
kobj-interface, e.g. the PCI bus driver, which should be done together
with converting powerpc to use the OFW PCI code from sparc64.
- Make the SBus and FHC front-end of zs(4) and the sparc64 eeprom(4) take
advantage of the ofw_bus kobj-interface and simplify them a bit.
Reviewed by: grehan, tmm
Approved by: re (scottl)
Discussed with: tmm
Tested with: Sun AX1105, AXe, Ultra 2, Ultra 60; PPC cross-build on i386
2004-08-12 17:41:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <dev/ofw/ofw_bus.h>
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
#include <machine/bus.h>
|
|
|
|
|
#include <sys/rman.h>
|
|
|
|
|
#include <machine/resource.h>
|
2005-06-04 21:52:56 +00:00
|
|
|
#include <machine/ver.h>
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <dev/uart/uart.h>
|
|
|
|
|
#include <dev/uart/uart_bus.h>
|
|
|
|
|
#include <dev/uart/uart_cpu.h>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static int uart_ebus_probe(device_t dev);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static device_method_t uart_ebus_methods[] = {
|
|
|
|
|
/* Device interface */
|
|
|
|
|
DEVMETHOD(device_probe, uart_ebus_probe),
|
|
|
|
|
DEVMETHOD(device_attach, uart_bus_attach),
|
|
|
|
|
DEVMETHOD(device_detach, uart_bus_detach),
|
|
|
|
|
{ 0, 0 }
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static driver_t uart_ebus_driver = {
|
|
|
|
|
uart_driver_name,
|
|
|
|
|
uart_ebus_methods,
|
|
|
|
|
sizeof(struct uart_softc),
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static int
|
|
|
|
|
uart_ebus_probe(device_t dev)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
2004-04-03 23:02:02 +00:00
|
|
|
const char *nm, *cmpt;
|
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
|
|
|
struct uart_softc *sc;
|
2005-06-04 21:52:56 +00:00
|
|
|
struct uart_devinfo dummy;
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sc = device_get_softc(dev);
|
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_class = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Introduce an ofw_bus kobj-interface for retrieving the OFW node and a
subset ("compatible", "device_type", "model" and "name") of the standard
properties in drivers for devices on Open Firmware supported busses. The
standard properties "reg", "interrupts" und "address" are not covered by
this interface because they are only of interest in the respective bridge
code. There's a remaining standard property "status" which is unclear how
to support properly but which also isn't used in FreeBSD at present.
This ofw_bus kobj-interface allows to replace the various (ebus_get_node(),
ofw_pci_get_node(), etc.) and partially inconsistent (central_get_type()
vs. sbus_get_device_type(), etc.) existing IVAR ones with a common one.
This in turn allows to simplify and remove code-duplication in drivers for
devices that can hang off of more than one OFW supported bus.
- Convert the sparc64 Central, EBus, FHC, PCI and SBus bus drivers and the
drivers for their children to use the ofw_bus kobj-interface. The IVAR-
interfaces of the Central, EBus and FHC are entirely replaced by this. The
PCI bus driver used its own kobj-interface and now also uses the ofw_bus
one. The IVARs special to the SBus, e.g. for retrieving the burst size,
remain.
Beware: this causes an ABI-breakage for modules of drivers which used the
IVAR-interfaces, i.e. esp(4), hme(4), isp(4) and uart(4), which need to be
recompiled.
The style-inconsistencies introduced in some of the bus drivers will be
fixed by tmm@ in a generic clean-up of the respective drivers later (he
requested to add the changes in the "new" style).
- Convert the powerpc MacIO bus driver and the drivers for its children to
use the ofw_bus kobj-interface. This invloves removing the IVARs related
to the "reg" property which were unused and a leftover from the NetBSD
origini of the code. There's no ABI-breakage caused by this because none
of these driver are currently built as modules.
There are other powerpc bus drivers which can be converted to the ofw_bus
kobj-interface, e.g. the PCI bus driver, which should be done together
with converting powerpc to use the OFW PCI code from sparc64.
- Make the SBus and FHC front-end of zs(4) and the sparc64 eeprom(4) take
advantage of the ofw_bus kobj-interface and simplify them a bit.
Reviewed by: grehan, tmm
Approved by: re (scottl)
Discussed with: tmm
Tested with: Sun AX1105, AXe, Ultra 2, Ultra 60; PPC cross-build on i386
2004-08-12 17:41:33 +00:00
|
|
|
nm = ofw_bus_get_name(dev);
|
|
|
|
|
cmpt = ofw_bus_get_compat(dev);
|
- Add support for using LOM (Lights Out Management) and RSC (Remote System
Control) devices as console. These are microcontrollers which are either
on-board or part of an add-on card and provide terminal server, remote
power switch and monitoring functionality. For console usage these are
connected to the rest of the system via a SCC or an UART. This commit adds
support for the following variants (corresponds to what 'input-device' and
'output-device' have to be set to):
rsc found on-board in E250 and supposedly some Netra, connected
via a SAB82532, com. parameters can be determined via OFW
rsc-console RSC card found in E280R, Fire V4x0, Fire V8x0, connected
via a NS16550, hardwired to 115200 8N1
lom-console LOMlite2 card found in Netra 20/T4, connected via a NS16550,
hardwired to 9600 8N1
- Add my copyright to uart_cpu_sparc64.c as I've rewritten about one third
of that file over time.
Tested on: E250, E280R
Thanks to: dwhite@ for providing access to an E280R
OK'ed by: marcel
MFC after: 1 week
2006-02-04 23:27:16 +00:00
|
|
|
if (cmpt == NULL)
|
|
|
|
|
cmpt = "";
|
|
|
|
|
if (!strcmp(nm, "lom-console") || !strcmp(nm, "su") ||
|
|
|
|
|
!strcmp(nm, "su_pnp") || !strcmp(cmpt, "rsc-console") ||
|
|
|
|
|
!strcmp(cmpt, "rsc-control") || !strcmp(cmpt, "su") ||
|
|
|
|
|
!strcmp(cmpt, "su16550")) {
|
2005-06-04 21:52:56 +00:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* On AXi and AXmp boards the NS16550 (used to connect
|
|
|
|
|
* keyboard/mouse) share their IRQ lines with the i8042.
|
|
|
|
|
* Any IRQ activity (typically during attach) of the
|
|
|
|
|
* NS16550 used to connect the keyboard when actually the
|
|
|
|
|
* PS/2 keyboard is selected in OFW causes interaction
|
|
|
|
|
* with the OBP i8042 driver resulting in a hang and vice
|
|
|
|
|
* versa. As RS232 keyboards and mice obviously aren't
|
|
|
|
|
* meant to be used in parallel with PS/2 ones on these
|
|
|
|
|
* boards don't attach to the NS16550 in case the RS232
|
|
|
|
|
* keyboard isn't selected in order to prevent such hangs.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if ((!strcmp(sparc64_model, "SUNW,UltraAX-MP") ||
|
|
|
|
|
!strcmp(sparc64_model, "SUNW,UltraSPARC-IIi-Engine")) &&
|
|
|
|
|
uart_cpu_getdev(UART_DEV_KEYBOARD, &dummy)) {
|
|
|
|
|
device_disable(dev);
|
|
|
|
|
return (ENXIO);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
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
|
|
|
sc->sc_class = &uart_ns8250_class;
|
2003-09-26 05:14:56 +00:00
|
|
|
return (uart_bus_probe(dev, 0, 0, 0, 0));
|
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 (ENXIO);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DRIVER_MODULE(uart, ebus, uart_ebus_driver, uart_devclass, 0, 0);
|
