On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 06:25:23PM +0600, Alexey Goncharov wrote:
>> I wonder if the port is using the irq or polling? I seem to recall
>> seeing really bad serial performance when the irq wasn't setup right once.
>
> Here is some output from linux booting log:
>
> Serial: 8250/16550 driver $Revision: 1.90 $ 4 ports, IRQ sharing isabled
> serial8250.0: ttyS0 at MMIO 0xe000c000 (irq = 6) is a 16550A
> serial8250.0: ttyS1 at MMIO 0xe0010000 (irq = 7) is a 16550A
> serial8250.0: ttyS2 at MMIO 0xe0078000 (irq = 28) is a 16550A
> serial8250.0: ttyS3 at MMIO 0xe007c000 (irq = 29) is a 16550A
>
> Am i right saying that irqs were installed and are being used properly
> according to the log above? The crystal which I am using is lpc2468 with
> the following definitions from 8250.c:
No. That just says what it thinks is right.
> [PORT_16650] = {
>
> .name = "ST16650",
>
> .fifo_size = 1,
>
> .tx_loadsz = 1,
>
> .flags = UART_CAP_FIFO | UART_CAP_EFR |
> UART_CAP_SLEEP,
If you want to know, check /proc/interrupts and make sure the count is
going up on the serial port you are using.
By the way, why would a 16650 have a fifo size of 1? That would give
really awful performance. 16550's have fifo sizes of 16. I thought
16650's were at least that and usually bigger.
--
Len Sorensen
_______________________________________________
uClinux-dev mailing list
uClinux-dev@uclinux.org
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev
This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org
To unsubscribe see:
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
