Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750854AbWBQV0v (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:26:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751691AbWBQV0v (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:26:51 -0500 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([212.18.232.186]:61707 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750854AbWBQV0u (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:26:50 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:26:32 +0000 From: Russell King To: "Kilau, Scott" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] SIIG 8-port serial boards support Message-ID: <20060217212632.GD13502@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: "Kilau, Scott" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <335DD0B75189FB428E5C32680089FB9F8034C6@mtk-sms-mail01.digi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <335DD0B75189FB428E5C32680089FB9F8034C6@mtk-sms-mail01.digi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1634 Lines: 40 On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 02:32:03PM -0600, Kilau, Scott wrote: > Hi everyone, > (Sorry for the ugly copy/paste here, grabbing from a web browser to > email) > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 08:02:13PM +0000, Russell King wrote: > > Finally, let me explain why I favour the termios solution. The > biggest > > (and most important) aspect is that it allows existing applications > > such as minicom and gettys to work as expected - getting the correct > > handshaking mode that they desire without having to change userspace. > > What about creating a "struct termiox". > Yeah, it creates a new ioctl, but it is a pretty standard > ioctl among Unix's. > > I know adding termiox calls has been brought up before in > the past, and of course, nothing ever gets added... That still requires getty's and minicom etc to be modified, and as I point out in my follow up mail, not having getty understand it can be a security issue. Since we do have spare bits in cflag, I see no reason not to use them. If we use these spare bits, we stand a good chance that we'll have the desired behaviour without modifying userland. I've seen the occasional alternative suggestion, but no one has yet put forward a coherent argument against using termios's cflags to control the handshake mode. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/