Re: A bunch of small patches against the i386 HAL.

[Nick Garnett <nickg at ecoscentric dot com>]

Gary Thomas <gary at mlbassoc dot com> writes:

> On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 08:47, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 15:38, Gary Thomas wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 04:44, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > The attached patch contains a couple of small things against the i386
> > > 
> > > Oops - forgot the attachment?
> > 
> > Oops... here you go...
> 
> These all look good to me except the one about the serial FIFO.
> 
> I seem to recall some discussion [years ago] about this.  Nick?
> 

Yeah, so do I. Which is why that line is commented out. But I cannot
for the life of me recall why we decided to do that. Two possibility
come to mind:

1. wanting to support older PC with non-FIFO UARTs.

2. Maybe there were problems with the support of GDB packets, or
   something that the asynchrony introduced by the FIFOs messed up.

But I don't really remember -- could have been something else
entirely.

I think we should apply the patch and see what happens. If there is
really a problem it will probably reveal itself quickly enough. At
worse we would need to protect it with a config option.

The rest of the changes look fine to me too.

-- 
Nick Garnett                    eCos Kernel Architect
http://www.ecoscentric.com/     The eCos and RedBoot experts