[En-Nut-Discussion] UART_MF_NOBUFFER + H8S port

[Mike Cornelius]

Harald,

Don't worry about the PPP thing I'm not precious (sob).

Yours is much better set out, I always viewed my version as rev 1 and meant
to get 'round to cleaning it up now I don't have to.
That's the beauty of open source you didn't have to do a V1 and I don't have
to do V2.

I think you're right, a light weight and a heavy weight uart driver would be
a good idea, in my case the uart driver is the first thing to go into the
mod directory....

BTW I am in the middle of porting NutOS to the Renesas (Hitachi) H8S, I'm
not sure if anybody cares for such a thing but let me know if you do.

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: en-nut-discussion-admin at egnite.de
[mailto:en-nut-discussion-admin at egnite.de]On Behalf Of Harald Kipp
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 3:01 AM
To: en-nut-discussion at egnite.de
Subject: Re: [En-Nut-Discussion] UART_MF_NOBUFFER


Hi Mike,

I welcome your decision to move to version 3 and expect
many complains about what I have done to your PPP code.
Sorry in advance. :-)

You are right, there's indeed no way to modifiy the
buffer mode.

#define _IOFBF	    0x00
#define _IOLBF	    0x01
#define _IONBF	    0x02

are already defined in stdio.h. But there's no corresponding
setvbuf() or ioctrl-code. The reason for this? I guess, I simply
didn't implement it after I found out that I didn't need it.
But I agree, that it should be implemented. To do it right,
it may also support variable buffers. No problem in general,
but we need to take care about people still running ATmega103
boards with 3.6 MHz only. Should we split the UART driver
into a low cost and a full featured version?

That reminds me of another issue, being able to set hardware
handshake...sigh.

Harald

_______________________________________________
En-Nut-Discussion mailing list
En-Nut-Discussion at egnite.de
http://www.egnite.de/mailman/listinfo/en-nut-discussion