Hello,
I met some trouble with the 16550A driver provided in Xenomai 2.3.1
and my Moxa cards (PCI / 8 * RS232 / 168U ).
It was a problem of baudrate computation before setting the LCR_DLAB
register.
The formula implemented by the Xenomai driver is different from the one
provided by Moxa. So I
CHABAL David пишет:
I met some trouble with the 16550A driver provided in Xenomai 2.3.1
and my Moxa cards (PCI / 8 * RS232 / 168U ).
It was a problem of baudrate computation before setting the LCR_DLAB
register.
The formula implemented by the Xenomai driver is different from the one
Maksym Veremeyenko wrote:
CHABAL David пишет:
I met some trouble with the 16550A driver provided in Xenomai 2.3.1
and my Moxa cards (PCI / 8 * RS232 / 168U ).
It was a problem of baudrate computation before setting the LCR_DLAB
register.
The formula implemented by the Xenomai driver is
Le 11/5/2007, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
Maksym Veremeyenko wrote:
CHABAL David пиÑеÑ:
I met some trouble with the 16550A driver provided in Xenomai 2.3.1
and my Moxa cards (PCI / 8 * RS232 / 168U ).
It was a problem of baudrate computation before setting the LCR_DLAB
CHABAL David wrote:
Le 11/5/2007, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
Maksym Veremeyenko wrote:
CHABAL David пишет:
I met some trouble with the 16550A driver provided in Xenomai 2.3.1
and my Moxa cards (PCI / 8 * RS232 / 168U ).
It was a problem of baudrate computation before
CHABAL David wrote:
Hello,
I met some trouble with the 16550A driver provided in Xenomai 2.3.1
and my Moxa cards (PCI / 8 * RS232 / 168U ).
It was a problem of baudrate computation before setting the LCR_DLAB
register.
The formula implemented by the Xenomai driver is different from the
CHABAL David пишет:
Maksym, what is the kind of yours connections ? (PC - PC with the same
moxa cards inside the 2 boxes, or PC - other device ) ? (In the 1st
the case the both clocks are configured with the same value.)
in first case (8 ports board):
- 2 ports (at 38400) to linux host,
Jan Kiszka wrote:
CHABAL David wrote:
Le 11/5/2007, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
Maksym Veremeyenko wrote:
CHABAL David пишет:
I met some trouble with the 16550A driver provided in Xenomai 2.3.1
and my Moxa cards (PCI / 8 * RS232 / 168U ).
It was a problem of baudrate
Le 11/5/2007, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
CHABAL David wrote:
Le 11/5/2007, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
Maksym Veremeyenko wrote:
CHABAL David ÿøÃËõÃâ:
I met some trouble with the 16550A driver provided in Xenomai 2.3.1
and my Moxa
Maksym Veremeyenko wrote:
Jan Kiszka пишет:
moxa: 912.600/115.200 = 8
xeno: = 7
Yeah, hard arguments. This really cries for a moxa tweak. (The
alternative would be to pass an artificially increased baud_base - but
that would be _really_ ugly and we could also ask the user for the
divider
CHABAL David пишет:
moxa: 921600/115200 = 8 (not 7, I apologize for this mistake but we
guess here that the baud base is always 921600 and according to the
mxser file it can be 230400 for some cards)
Then for 'some cards' it's possible to specify 'baud_base' parameter.
What can i
CHABAL David wrote:
Le 11/5/2007, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
CHABAL David wrote:
In additional:
1. You should use 921600 value instead of 912.600.
The . was here for reading facility only, I consider it as an integer
in my computations.
The point was not the point, but the
Le 11/5/2007, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
CHABAL David wrote:
In additional:
1. You should use 921600 value instead of 912.600.
The . was here for reading facility only, I consider it as an integer
in my computations.
The point was not the point, but the flipped digits.
CHABAL David пишет:
Oupsss, I'm beaten :-(
The only case with a different value that I found is for 1200:
(230400+1200)/1200 = 193
230400/1200 = 192
(230400+600)/1200 = [192,5] = 192
230400/1200 = 192
--
Maksym Veremeyenko
Jan Kiszka пишет:
(230400+57600)/115200=2,5 = 2
230400/115200=2
IMHO - even if result was '3' - i would suggest to use formula that
gives '3' because it's more correct.
So we have the same results for both formulas and I don't see the need
for a patch anymore. Do you? Otherwise I
Le 11/5/2007, Maksym Veremeyenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
CHABAL David ÐÉÛÅÔ:
Oupsss, I'm beaten :-(
The only case with a different value that I found is for 1200:
(230400+1200)/1200 = 193
230400/1200 = 192
(230400+600)/1200 = [192,5] = 192
230400/1200 = 192
--
CHABAL David wrote:
In additional:
1. You should use 921600 value instead of 912.600.
The . was here for reading facility only, I consider it as an integer
in my computations.
The point was not the point, but the flipped digits.
(921600 + (115200 div 2)) div 115200 = 8
So back to
CHABAL David wrote:
Le 11/5/2007, Maksym Veremeyenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit:
CHABAL David ÐÉÛÅÔ:
Oupsss, I'm beaten :-(
The only case with a different value that I found is for 1200:
(230400+1200)/1200 = 193
230400/1200 = 192
(230400+600)/1200 = [192,5] = 192
230400/1200 = 192
--
18 matches
Mail list logo
