Re: Serial Configuration
Here's the latest update on the serial port. I have the modem working
fine at 9600 baud. Unfortunately, at 14400 baud the kernel reports
kernel: ttyS0: 5 input overrun(s). I have tried playing with setserial,
but setserial doesn't seem to recognize the zilog 8530 ports. However, I
seem to be able to set the baud_base, and the other parameters with
setserial.
Setting the baud_base to 14400 or 38400 makes no difference in preventing
overruns. I have also set the spd_normal flag. Also, hardware or
software flow control seem to have little effect. I believe I have set
the prom to 38400 also.
I did have the machine running at 14400 baud with SunOS before I installed
SparcLinux, so I know the machine is capable.
What could I be doing wrong here? What is the proper way to configure the
Sparc serial ports? Any help here would be great appreciated.
Thanks!!
Jake Griesbach
University of Colorado
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Jake Griesbach wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I eventually want to connect a 14400 modem to my SparcStation 1+ running
> SparcLinux. I'm having trouble configuring the serial ports. First of
> all, does this have to be done? I have noticed that I can do some
> configuration from the prom.
>
> During boot, setserial runs and gives an error.
>
> I have tried the following command, but to no avail:
>
> setserial -b /dev/ttyS0 irq 12 port 0xffd02004 skip_test autoconfig \
> session_lockout spd_normal
>
> which returns: Cannot set serial info: Invalid argmuent
>
> the kernel reports on bootup:
>
> Sparc Zilog8530 serial driver version 1.38
> tty00 at 0xffd02004 (irq = 12) is a Zilog8530
> tty01 at 0xffd02000 (irq = 12) is a Zilog8530
> tty02 at 0xffd00004 (irq = 12) is a Zilog8530
> tty03 at 0xffd00000 (irq = 12) is a Zilog8530
>
> Does the kernel perform the necessary configuration for Sparcs?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jake Griesbach
> University of Colorado
>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: