this problem put these lines back in. While they should be
unnecessary, they appear to be sometimes necessary.
Reviewed in concept: dfr
Approved by: re (scottl@)
to the pci attachment. Cardbus is a derived class of pci so all pci
drivers are automatically available for matching against cardbus devices.
Reviewed by: imp
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
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.
