Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1674350 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <enrico.weigelt@gr13.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-26 00:50 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-06-30 19:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
Directly accessing serial ports from drivers w/o TTYs ? "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <enrico.weigelt@gr13.net> - 2017-06-26 00:50 +0200
Re: Directly accessing serial ports from drivers w/o TTYs ? Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> - 2017-06-26 17:00 +0200
Re: Directly accessing serial ports from drivers w/o TTYs ? "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <enrico.weigelt@gr13.net> - 2017-06-29 13:50 +0200
Re: Directly accessing serial ports from drivers w/o TTYs ? Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> - 2017-06-30 19:30 +0200
| From | "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <enrico.weigelt@gr13.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 00:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Directly accessing serial ports from drivers w/o TTYs ? |
| Message-ID | <tWovT-2uQ-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi folks, is there already a way for accessing serial ports from drivers, w/o having to go through the TTY subsystem ? Serdev seems provide a connection between arbitrary TTYs to device drivers. But this implies always having a TTY for each UART (even if it's never used outside the kernel). Is there any way for accessing uarts more directly ? --mtx -- Enrico, Sohn von Wilfried, a.d.F. Weigelt, metux IT consulting +49-151-27565287
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 17:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tWDEC-3EY-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1674350 |
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 00:43:12 +0200 "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <enrico.weigelt@gr13.net> wrote: > Hi folks, > > > is there already a way for accessing serial ports from drivers, > w/o having to go through the TTY subsystem ? > > Serdev seems provide a connection between arbitrary TTYs to device > drivers. But this implies always having a TTY for each UART (even if > it's never used outside the kernel). > > Is there any way for accessing uarts more directly ? You can write your own driver for the physical hardware and claim it in your driver. Shouldn't normally be needed except for bizarre cases when a serial link is used for something very non tty like (eg as GPIO lines). Otherwise all the low level tty device locking, queues and interfaces assume there is a tty_struct attached to it, so yes you need a tty struct. Why do you need to do otherwise ? Alan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <enrico.weigelt@gr13.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-29 13:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tXG7o-71O-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1674842 |
On 26.06.2017 14:51, Alan Cox wrote: Hi, > You can write your own driver for the physical hardware and claim it in > your driver. Shouldn't normally be needed except for bizarre cases when a > serial link is used for something very non tty like (eg as GPIO lines). In my case, it's not really a serial link, but an backplane w/ FIFOs, which looks like a serial ports to the host (AFAIK, historically coming from older systems which actually had various serial controllers, eg. rs232, rs485/mvb, etc). The backplane seems to simulate the lower layers of an mvb network. > Otherwise all the low level tty device locking, queues and interfaces > assume there is a tty_struct attached to it, so yes you need a tty > struct. I was thinking about something that looks like serdev from consumer side, but instead directly works on struct uart_port, w/o actually allocating a tty (and also the funny things like signals, etc). > Why do you need to do otherwise ? Maybe it could offer better performance ? --mtx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-30 19:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tY7TX-8jY-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1677647 |
> I was thinking about something that looks like serdev from consumer > side, but instead directly works on struct uart_port, w/o actually > allocating a tty (and also the funny things like signals, etc). uart_port is only a subset of tty devices and also relies upon tty for some of the locking and other behaviour. > > Why do you need to do otherwise ? > > Maybe it could offer better performance ? Unless you have very tight latency requirements I would be surprised if you could do that much better even on a slow machine. If you don't need tty semantics then you can probably beat it hands down by writing your own custom driver for the hardware that doesn't pretend to be a tty in the first place. The cost in the tty stack is pretty much all the Unix tty API and POSIX guarantees. Alan
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web