From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bernhard Fischer Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:49:00 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] microcom broken with latest uclibc snapshot. In-Reply-To: <004a01c73ed1$21643210$01c4af0a@atmel.com> References: <049801c73e80$cf0bedf0$01c4af0a@atmel.com> <20070123001856.GA10178@aon.at> <004a01c73ed1$21643210$01c4af0a@atmel.com> Message-ID: <20070123094900.GA14123@aon.at> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 10:06:16AM +0100, Ulf Samuelsson wrote: >Bernhard Fischer wrote: >>On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 12:32:37AM +0100, Ulf Samuelsson wrote: >>>When using the latest uClibc snapshot to build the toolchain, >>>It looks like the high speeds are not acceptable (> 1151200) >>>and the generated /arm-linux/sys-include/bits/termios.h >>>has higher speeds commented away. >>> >>>#if 0 /* limited on uClibc, keep in sync w/ cfsetspeed.c */ >>>#define B230400 0010003 >>>... >>>#endif >>> >>>This is not a good idea, if the MCU can handle higher speed! >>> >>>It also breaks microcom-1.02. >> >>I'm pretty sure that i fixed microcom, please update and confirm >>since i only compile tested it.. > >My Buildroot copy is from 2007-01-16. today is something like 2007-01-23 (for me) ;) $ svn log -r "{2007-01-16}:HEAD" | grep -e ^r[[:digit:]] | wc -l 78 We had 78 patches going in since then. > >But why limit the UART speed? >An AT91RM9200 can do 460kBAUD. >Have several customer which would like to avoid >such artificial limitation. >Isn't it better to make the max speed a configuration item? I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be configurable, agree. Perhaps send a proposed patch along the rational to the uClibc list..