i386/105616: UART PCI device just silent...

[Marcel Moolenaar]

The following reply was made to PR i386/105616; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt at mac.com>
To: Helge Oldach <puc-uart at oldach.net>
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit at FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: i386/105616: UART PCI device just silent...
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 09:47:39 -0800

 On Nov 16, 2006, at 12:46 PM, Helge Oldach wrote:
 
 > --- sys/dev/uart/uart_bus_pci.c.ctm	Wed Aug  2 16:24:19 2006
 > +++ sys/dev/uart/uart_bus_pci.c	Wed Nov 15 10:18:56 2006
 > @@ -101,6 +101,8 @@
 >  	8 * DEFAULT_RCLK },
 >  { 0x1409, 0x7168, 0x1409, 0x4028, "Timedia Technology Serial  
 > Port", 0x10,
 >  	8 * DEFAULT_RCLK },
 > +{ 0x1409, 0x7168, 0x1409, 0x4037, "Timedia Technology Serial  
 > Port", 0x10,
 > +	8 * DEFAULT_RCLK },
 >  { 0x1409, 0x7168, 0x1409, 0x5025, "Timedia Technology Serial  
 > Port", 0x10,
 >  	8 * DEFAULT_RCLK },
 >  { 0x1409, 0x7168, 0x1409, 0x5027, "Timedia Technology Serial  
 > Port", 0x10,
 >
 
 The patch is not right. The PCI device you talk about is a *dual* serial
 I/O card. As such, puc(4) needs to attach to it, not uart(4). Adding the
 PCI ids to uart(4) will only cause a conflict, not to mention that if
 uart(4) attaches, it only attaches to the first.
 
 However, the patch shows that the clock on these cards is 8 times the
 default clock. I think that is why puc(4)+uart(4) doesn't work. If
 you select a baudrate that 8 times lower than what you know the baudrate
 should be, then you should be able to transmit and receive data. If
 that's the case, then puc(4) needs to be fixed to have the correct
 clock value for these boards.
 
 Note also that I have not heard of uart(4) being wrong in classifying  
 the
 type as 16550, 1660 or otherwise.
 
 FYI,
 
 -- 
 Marcel Moolenaar
 xcllnt at mac.com