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