Andy Green wrote: > Who actually read the code and determined that, and what is the story > about how it handles RTS and CTS?
See my previous mail on the topic. I didn't see anything suspicious about RTS/CTS but the IN1 logic has a simplistic implementation that leads to complex semantics. I don't think this causes any of the troubles people are concerned about at the moment and any non-trivial change there would need a lot of testing, so I'd put it into the "fix later" pile. - Werner
