From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B60FFC433EF for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 15:33:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242458AbiBQPd0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:33:26 -0500 Received: from mxb-00190b01.gslb.pphosted.com ([23.128.96.19]:47830 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229573AbiBQPd0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:33:26 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 302 seconds by postgrey-1.37 at lindbergh.monkeyblade.net; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:33:11 PST Received: from ciao.gmane.io (ciao.gmane.io [116.202.254.214]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A7147562F for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:33:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nKihR-0002Nn-GV for linux-serial@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 16:28:05 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org From: Grant Edwards Subject: Opening already open serial port now sets RTS and DTR? Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 15:28:00 -0000 (UTC) Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org It used to be that opening a serial port only set RTS and DTR if it was a "first open". If the port was already open, subsequent opens didn't mess up RTS and DTR. This was a very useful behavior in the embedded world where RTS and DTR are often used to power and or control things (reset lines, mode controls, line driver enables, etc.). This seems to have changed, and now _every_ open sets RTS and DTR even if the port was already open and RTS and DTR had already been put in the desired state. Is there no longer any way to open an already-open serial port without changing the state of RTS and DTR? What was the reasoning for breaking user-application backwards compatiblity like that? -- Grant