[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 13:52:38 -0500
- From: norume at aps.anl.gov (Eric Norum)
- Subject: termios XON/XOFF
On May 2, 2007, at 1:39 PM, Aaron J. Grier wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 12:01:15PM -0500, Eric Norum wrote:
>> My feeling is that the termios code is already too complicated and
>> that all the code to support XON/XOFF flow control should be optional
>> or removed.
>> Does anyone really use this antiquated and unreliable means of flow
>> control any more?
>> I'd be happy with leaving flow control up to the hardware (RTS/CTS)
>> and dropping all references to flow control from the generic termios
> RTS/CTS is still going to affect termios even if the heavy lifting is
> being managed in the device driver, and at the very least the knobs
> enabling/disabling it have to be exported. if RTS/CTS isn't
> managed by
> hardware, that leaves termios to deal with it.
I see that I wasn't clear enough in my rant above. I do, in fact,
suggest that flow control be limited not only to RTS/CTS, but further
to hardware which supports it. Then the only vestige of flow control
support left in the generic termios code is that which passes the
enable/disable request down to the individual drivers.
Like I said, "controversial".
My guess is that the majority of systems out there support hardware
flow control nowadays.
> termios may not be pretty, but it is at least somewhat standardized.
> what else is there as far as serial APIs? the windows world of
> "everything's a UART" seems incredibly worse. are there other
I'm not arguing to get rid of termios, just to cut down on its bloat.
> Aaron J. Grier | Frye Electronics, Tigard, OR | aaron at frye.com
> rtems-users mailing list
> rtems-users at rtems.com
Eric Norum <norume at aps.anl.gov>
Advanced Photon Source
Argonne National Laboratory