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("$FreeBSD$");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#ifndef KLD_MODULE
|
|
|
|
#include "opt_comconsole.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "opt_ddb.h"
|
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <sys/param.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <sys/systm.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <sys/bus.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <sys/conf.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <sys/cons.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <sys/fcntl.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <sys/interrupt.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <sys/kernel.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <sys/malloc.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <sys/queue.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <sys/reboot.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <machine/bus.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <sys/rman.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <sys/termios.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <sys/tty.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <machine/resource.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <machine/stdarg.h>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <ddb/ddb.h>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <dev/uart/uart.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <dev/uart/uart_bus.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <dev/uart/uart_cpu.h>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include "uart_if.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
devclass_t uart_devclass;
|
|
|
|
char uart_driver_name[] = "uart";
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SLIST_HEAD(uart_devinfo_list, uart_devinfo) uart_sysdevs =
|
|
|
|
SLIST_HEAD_INITIALIZER(uart_sysdevs);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MALLOC_DEFINE(M_UART, "UART", "UART driver");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void
|
|
|
|
uart_add_sysdev(struct uart_devinfo *di)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
SLIST_INSERT_HEAD(&uart_sysdevs, di, next);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* A break condition has been detected. We treat the break condition as
|
|
|
|
* a special case that should not happen during normal operation. When
|
|
|
|
* the break condition is to be passed to higher levels in the form of
|
|
|
|
* a NUL character, we really want the break to be in the right place in
|
|
|
|
* the input stream. The overhead to achieve that is not in relation to
|
|
|
|
* the exceptional nature of the break condition, so we permit ourselves
|
|
|
|
* to be sloppy.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
static void
|
|
|
|
uart_intr_break(struct uart_softc *sc)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#if defined(DDB) && defined(BREAK_TO_DEBUGGER)
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_sysdev != NULL && sc->sc_sysdev->type == UART_DEV_CONSOLE) {
|
|
|
|
breakpoint();
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_opened)
|
|
|
|
atomic_set_32(&sc->sc_ttypend, UART_IPEND_BREAK);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Handle a receiver overrun situation. We lost at least 1 byte in the
|
|
|
|
* input stream and it's our job to contain the situation. We grab as
|
|
|
|
* much of the data we can, but otherwise flush the receiver FIFO to
|
|
|
|
* create some breathing room. The net effect is that we avoid the
|
|
|
|
* overrun condition to happen for the next X characters, where X is
|
|
|
|
* related to the FIFO size at the cost of loosing data right away.
|
|
|
|
* So, instead of having multiple overrun interrupts in close proximity
|
|
|
|
* to each other and possibly pessimizing UART interrupt latency for
|
|
|
|
* other UARTs in a multiport configuration, we create a longer segment
|
|
|
|
* of missing characters by freeing up the FIFO.
|
|
|
|
* Each overrun condition is marked in the input buffer by a token. The
|
|
|
|
* token represents the loss of at least one, but possible more bytes in
|
|
|
|
* the input stream.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
static void
|
|
|
|
uart_intr_overrun(struct uart_softc *sc)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_opened) {
|
|
|
|
UART_RECEIVE(sc);
|
|
|
|
if (uart_rx_put(sc, UART_STAT_OVERRUN))
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_rxbuf[sc->sc_rxput] = UART_STAT_OVERRUN;
|
|
|
|
atomic_set_32(&sc->sc_ttypend, UART_IPEND_RXREADY);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
UART_FLUSH(sc, UART_FLUSH_RECEIVER);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Received data ready.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
static void
|
|
|
|
uart_intr_rxready(struct uart_softc *sc)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
int rxp;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rxp = sc->sc_rxput;
|
|
|
|
UART_RECEIVE(sc);
|
|
|
|
#if defined(DDB) && defined(ALT_BREAK_TO_DEBUGGER)
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_sysdev != NULL && sc->sc_sysdev->type == UART_DEV_CONSOLE) {
|
|
|
|
while (rxp != sc->sc_rxput) {
|
|
|
|
if (db_alt_break(sc->sc_rxbuf[rxp++], &sc->sc_altbrk))
|
|
|
|
breakpoint();
|
|
|
|
if (rxp == sc->sc_rxbufsz)
|
|
|
|
rxp = 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_opened)
|
|
|
|
atomic_set_32(&sc->sc_ttypend, UART_IPEND_RXREADY);
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_rxput = sc->sc_rxget; /* Ignore received data. */
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Line or modem status change (OOB signalling).
|
|
|
|
* We pass the signals to the software interrupt handler for further
|
|
|
|
* processing. Note that we merge the delta bits, but set the state
|
|
|
|
* bits. This is to avoid loosing state transitions due to having more
|
|
|
|
* than 1 hardware interrupt between software interrupts.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
static void
|
|
|
|
uart_intr_sigchg(struct uart_softc *sc)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
int new, old, sig;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sig = UART_GETSIG(sc);
|
2003-09-11 23:06:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_pps.ppsparam.mode & PPS_CAPTUREBOTH) {
|
|
|
|
if (sig & UART_SIG_DPPS) {
|
|
|
|
pps_capture(&sc->sc_pps);
|
|
|
|
pps_event(&sc->sc_pps, (sig & UART_SIG_PPS) ?
|
|
|
|
PPS_CAPTUREASSERT : PPS_CAPTURECLEAR);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
do {
|
|
|
|
old = sc->sc_ttypend;
|
|
|
|
new = old & ~UART_SIGMASK_STATE;
|
|
|
|
new |= sig & UART_IPEND_SIGMASK;
|
|
|
|
new |= UART_IPEND_SIGCHG;
|
|
|
|
} while (!atomic_cmpset_32(&sc->sc_ttypend, old, new));
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* The transmitter can accept more data.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
static void
|
|
|
|
uart_intr_txidle(struct uart_softc *sc)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_txbusy) {
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_txbusy = 0;
|
|
|
|
atomic_set_32(&sc->sc_ttypend, UART_IPEND_TXIDLE);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static void
|
|
|
|
uart_intr(void *arg)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
struct uart_softc *sc = arg;
|
|
|
|
int ipend;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_leaving)
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
2003-09-17 03:11:32 +00:00
|
|
|
do {
|
|
|
|
ipend = UART_IPEND(sc);
|
|
|
|
if (ipend == 0)
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
if (ipend & UART_IPEND_OVERRUN)
|
|
|
|
uart_intr_overrun(sc);
|
|
|
|
if (ipend & UART_IPEND_BREAK)
|
|
|
|
uart_intr_break(sc);
|
|
|
|
if (ipend & UART_IPEND_RXREADY)
|
|
|
|
uart_intr_rxready(sc);
|
|
|
|
if (ipend & UART_IPEND_SIGCHG)
|
|
|
|
uart_intr_sigchg(sc);
|
|
|
|
if (ipend & UART_IPEND_TXIDLE)
|
|
|
|
uart_intr_txidle(sc);
|
|
|
|
} while (1);
|
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 (sc->sc_opened && sc->sc_ttypend != 0)
|
|
|
|
swi_sched(sc->sc_softih, 0);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
int
|
2003-09-26 05:14:56 +00:00
|
|
|
uart_bus_probe(device_t dev, int regshft, int rclk, int rid, int chan)
|
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;
|
|
|
|
struct uart_devinfo *sysdev;
|
|
|
|
int error;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Initialize the instance. Note that the instance (=softc) does
|
|
|
|
* not necessarily match the hardware specific softc. We can't do
|
|
|
|
* anything about it now, because we may not attach to the device.
|
|
|
|
* Hardware drivers cannot use any of the class specific fields
|
|
|
|
* while probing.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
sc = device_get_softc(dev);
|
|
|
|
kobj_init((kobj_t)sc, (kobj_class_t)sc->sc_class);
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_dev = dev;
|
|
|
|
if (device_get_desc(dev) == NULL)
|
|
|
|
device_set_desc(dev, sc->sc_class->name);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Allocate the register resource. We assume that all UARTs have
|
|
|
|
* a single register window in either I/O port space or memory
|
|
|
|
* mapped I/O space. Any UART that needs multiple windows will
|
|
|
|
* consequently not be supported by this driver as-is. We try I/O
|
|
|
|
* port space first because that's the common case.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_rrid = rid;
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_rtype = SYS_RES_IOPORT;
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_rres = bus_alloc_resource(dev, sc->sc_rtype, &sc->sc_rrid,
|
|
|
|
0, ~0, sc->sc_class->uc_range, RF_ACTIVE);
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_rres == NULL) {
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_rrid = rid;
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_rtype = SYS_RES_MEMORY;
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_rres = bus_alloc_resource(dev, sc->sc_rtype,
|
|
|
|
&sc->sc_rrid, 0, ~0, sc->sc_class->uc_range, RF_ACTIVE);
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_rres == NULL)
|
|
|
|
return (ENXIO);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Fill in the bus access structure and compare this device with
|
|
|
|
* a possible console device and/or a debug port. We set the flags
|
|
|
|
* in the softc so that the hardware dependent probe can adjust
|
|
|
|
* accordingly. In general, you don't want to permanently disrupt
|
|
|
|
* console I/O.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_bas.bsh = rman_get_bushandle(sc->sc_rres);
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_bas.bst = rman_get_bustag(sc->sc_rres);
|
2003-09-26 05:14:56 +00:00
|
|
|
sc->sc_bas.chan = chan;
|
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_bas.regshft = regshft;
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_bas.rclk = (rclk == 0) ? sc->sc_class->uc_rclk : rclk;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SLIST_FOREACH(sysdev, &uart_sysdevs, next) {
|
2003-09-26 05:14:56 +00:00
|
|
|
if (chan == sysdev->bas.chan &&
|
|
|
|
uart_cpu_eqres(&sc->sc_bas, &sysdev->bas)) {
|
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
|
|
|
/* XXX check if ops matches class. */
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_sysdev = sysdev;
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
error = UART_PROBE(sc);
|
|
|
|
bus_release_resource(dev, sc->sc_rtype, sc->sc_rrid, sc->sc_rres);
|
|
|
|
return (error);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
int
|
|
|
|
uart_bus_attach(device_t dev)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
struct uart_softc *sc, *sc0;
|
|
|
|
const char *sep;
|
|
|
|
int error;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* The sc_class field defines the type of UART we're going to work
|
|
|
|
* with and thus the size of the softc. Replace the generic softc
|
|
|
|
* with one that matches the UART now that we're certain we handle
|
|
|
|
* the device.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
sc0 = device_get_softc(dev);
|
|
|
|
if (sc0->sc_class->size > sizeof(*sc)) {
|
|
|
|
sc = malloc(sc0->sc_class->size, M_UART, M_WAITOK|M_ZERO);
|
|
|
|
bcopy(sc0, sc, sizeof(*sc));
|
|
|
|
device_set_softc(dev, sc);
|
|
|
|
} else
|
|
|
|
sc = sc0;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Protect ourselves against interrupts while we're not completely
|
|
|
|
* finished attaching and initializing. We don't expect interrupts
|
|
|
|
* until after UART_ATTACH() though.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_leaving = 1;
|
|
|
|
|
2003-09-17 01:41:21 +00:00
|
|
|
mtx_init(&sc->sc_hwmtx, "uart_hwmtx", NULL, MTX_SPIN);
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* Re-allocate. We expect that the softc contains the information
|
|
|
|
* collected by uart_bus_probe() intact.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_rres = bus_alloc_resource(dev, sc->sc_rtype, &sc->sc_rrid,
|
|
|
|
0, ~0, sc->sc_class->uc_range, RF_ACTIVE);
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_rres == NULL)
|
|
|
|
return (ENXIO);
|
2003-09-23 09:55:21 +00:00
|
|
|
sc->sc_bas.bsh = rman_get_bushandle(sc->sc_rres);
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_bas.bst = rman_get_bustag(sc->sc_rres);
|
|
|
|
|
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_irid = 0;
|
2004-03-17 17:50:55 +00:00
|
|
|
sc->sc_ires = bus_alloc_resource_any(dev, SYS_RES_IRQ, &sc->sc_irid,
|
|
|
|
RF_ACTIVE);
|
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 (sc->sc_ires != NULL) {
|
|
|
|
error = BUS_SETUP_INTR(device_get_parent(dev), dev,
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_ires, INTR_TYPE_TTY | INTR_FAST, uart_intr,
|
|
|
|
sc, &sc->sc_icookie);
|
|
|
|
if (error)
|
|
|
|
error = BUS_SETUP_INTR(device_get_parent(dev), dev,
|
2004-05-04 05:54:02 +00:00
|
|
|
sc->sc_ires, INTR_TYPE_TTY | INTR_MPSAFE,
|
|
|
|
uart_intr, sc, &sc->sc_icookie);
|
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
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_fastintr = 1;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (error) {
|
|
|
|
device_printf(dev, "could not activate interrupt\n");
|
|
|
|
bus_release_resource(dev, SYS_RES_IRQ, sc->sc_irid,
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_ires);
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_ires = NULL;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_ires == NULL) {
|
|
|
|
/* XXX no interrupt resource. Force polled mode. */
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_polled = 1;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_rxbufsz = IBUFSIZ;
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_rxbuf = malloc(sc->sc_rxbufsz * sizeof(*sc->sc_rxbuf),
|
|
|
|
M_UART, M_WAITOK);
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_txbuf = malloc(sc->sc_txfifosz * sizeof(*sc->sc_txbuf),
|
|
|
|
M_UART, M_WAITOK);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
error = UART_ATTACH(sc);
|
|
|
|
if (error)
|
|
|
|
goto fail;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_hwiflow || sc->sc_hwoflow) {
|
|
|
|
sep = "";
|
|
|
|
device_print_prettyname(dev);
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_hwiflow) {
|
|
|
|
printf("%sRTS iflow", sep);
|
|
|
|
sep = ", ";
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_hwoflow) {
|
|
|
|
printf("%sCTS oflow", sep);
|
|
|
|
sep = ", ";
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
printf("\n");
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (bootverbose && (sc->sc_fastintr || sc->sc_polled)) {
|
|
|
|
sep = "";
|
|
|
|
device_print_prettyname(dev);
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_fastintr) {
|
|
|
|
printf("%sfast interrupt", sep);
|
|
|
|
sep = ", ";
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_polled) {
|
|
|
|
printf("%spolled mode", sep);
|
|
|
|
sep = ", ";
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
printf("\n");
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_sysdev != NULL) {
|
|
|
|
switch (sc->sc_sysdev->type) {
|
|
|
|
case UART_DEV_CONSOLE:
|
|
|
|
device_printf(dev, "console");
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case UART_DEV_DBGPORT:
|
|
|
|
device_printf(dev, "debug port");
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case UART_DEV_KEYBOARD:
|
|
|
|
device_printf(dev, "keyboard");
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
default:
|
|
|
|
device_printf(dev, "unknown system device");
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
printf(" (%d,%c,%d,%d)\n", sc->sc_sysdev->baudrate,
|
|
|
|
"noems"[sc->sc_sysdev->parity], sc->sc_sysdev->databits,
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_sysdev->stopbits);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2003-09-11 23:06:42 +00:00
|
|
|
sc->sc_pps.ppscap = PPS_CAPTUREBOTH;
|
|
|
|
pps_init(&sc->sc_pps);
|
|
|
|
|
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 = (sc->sc_sysdev != NULL && sc->sc_sysdev->attach != NULL)
|
|
|
|
? (*sc->sc_sysdev->attach)(sc) : uart_tty_attach(sc);
|
|
|
|
if (error)
|
|
|
|
goto fail;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_leaving = 0;
|
|
|
|
uart_intr(sc);
|
|
|
|
return (0);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fail:
|
|
|
|
free(sc->sc_txbuf, M_UART);
|
|
|
|
free(sc->sc_rxbuf, M_UART);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_ires != NULL) {
|
|
|
|
bus_teardown_intr(dev, sc->sc_ires, sc->sc_icookie);
|
|
|
|
bus_release_resource(dev, SYS_RES_IRQ, sc->sc_irid,
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_ires);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
bus_release_resource(dev, sc->sc_rtype, sc->sc_rrid, sc->sc_rres);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return (error);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
int
|
|
|
|
uart_bus_detach(device_t dev)
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
struct uart_softc *sc;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sc = device_get_softc(dev);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_leaving = 1;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UART_DETACH(sc);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_sysdev != NULL && sc->sc_sysdev->detach != NULL)
|
|
|
|
(*sc->sc_sysdev->detach)(sc);
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
uart_tty_detach(sc);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
free(sc->sc_txbuf, M_UART);
|
|
|
|
free(sc->sc_rxbuf, M_UART);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_ires != NULL) {
|
|
|
|
bus_teardown_intr(dev, sc->sc_ires, sc->sc_icookie);
|
|
|
|
bus_release_resource(dev, SYS_RES_IRQ, sc->sc_irid,
|
|
|
|
sc->sc_ires);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
bus_release_resource(dev, sc->sc_rtype, sc->sc_rrid, sc->sc_rres);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (sc->sc_class->size > sizeof(*sc)) {
|
|
|
|
device_set_softc(dev, NULL);
|
|
|
|
free(sc, M_UART);
|
|
|
|
} else
|
|
|
|
device_set_softc(dev, NULL);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return (0);
|
|
|
|
}
|