Subject: Re: Huh? TIOCMGET fails in 1.3.3? How's 1.4?
To: Christos Zoulas <christos@zoulas.com>
From: Michael Maciolek <mikem@ne.cohesive.com>
List: port-sparc
Date: 07/13/1999 09:52:34
Christos,

Now I'm even more confused.  I *hope* I'm just mis-interpreting what you
say here, or perhaps you misinterpreted me.

Here's Brian's message, again:
 >
 >        It looks like you can continue using 1.3.3 with your application if
 >you do the following:
 >#define TIOCMGET TIOCGFLAGS
 >#define TIOCMSET TIOCSFLAGS
 >
 >Those two ioctls are listed as being unsupported by the com driver.
 >-Brian

My reply to Brian said that I didn't think this would work in 1.3.3, because
TIOCGFLAGS and TIOCMGET retrieve two different sets of mode bits.  Here are
the bits returned by TIOCGFLAGS:

	#define    TIOCFLAG_SOFTCAR     0x01    /* ignore hardware carrier */
	#define    TIOCFLAG_CLOCAL      0x02    /* set clocal on open */
	#define    TIOCFLAG_CRTSCTS     0x04    /* set crtscts on open */
	#define    TIOCFLAG_MDMBUF      0x08    /* set mdmbuf on open */
	#define    TIOCFLAG_CDTRCTS     0x10    /* set cdtrcts on open */

and here are the same bits returned by TIOCMGET:

	#define    TIOCM_LE             0001    /* line enable */
	#define    TIOCM_DTR            0002    /* data terminal ready */
	#define    TIOCM_RTS            0004    /* request to send */
	#define    TIOCM_ST             0010    /* secondary transmit */
	#define    TIOCM_SR             0020    /* secondary receive */

Aside from the odd inconsistency that one set is defined in hex and the
other in octal, it's still clear that the SAME BIT POSITIONS are used for
very different meanings.  THAT is the essence of my reply to Brian - that
I couldn't simply use TIOCGFLAGS as a synonym for TIOCMGET.

(Brian - sorry, I don't mean to beat a dead horse.  I only want to make
 sure there's nothing really strange going on.)

Christos, I *hope* you're simply saying that it works in 1.4, which is a
claim that I never questioned in the first place.

(Though I can't help wondering...how close to release is 1.4.1? )

Regards, all

Michael Maciolek



On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Christos Zoulas wrote:

  >In article <Pine.GSO.4.05.9907121710300.17979-100000@lorax.whoville.leftbank.com>,
  >Michael Maciolek <mikem@ne.cohesive.com> wrote:
  >>Brian,
  >>
  >>I don't think that's going to work.  Browsing the include files, I see that
  >>TIOCGFLAGS is used to access the following flags:
  >
  >It is going to work. I think I was the one that added support for them,
  >and charles made it to actually work.
  >
  >christos