Hi Wolgang, On Oct 23, 2011 7:20 PM, "Wolfgang Denk" <w...@denx.de> wrote: > > Dear Graeme Russ, > > In message <4ea34086.4030...@gmail.com> you wrote: > > > > One problem I see with XON/XOFF is that if we don't send XOFF at the right > > time, we run the risk of entering a busy loop (any reasonable timeout delay > > for example) and loosing input. So in theory, we would need to send XOFF > > after every getc() ... > > That's not true. I am not aware of any significant delays that take > place while receiving characters that belong to a single line. If we > had any of these, we would lose characters all the time - but we > don't. > > It should be sufficient to send XOFF after receiving a newline > character.
And, ergo, we send an XON when entering the readline function Hmm, should we move readline() into console.c > > Maybe we need disable/enable flow control functions for when we know we > > will be entering a busy loop the consumes serial input (ymodem and kermit > > transfers and readline for example) > > This should not be necessary. Actually the implementation should not > need to know about such special cases. So how does kermit/ymodem send the XON after the user has entered the receive command and we have sent the XOFF after the newline? Regards, Graeme
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
