From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Marko Mlinar" To: Cc: , "Damjan Lampret" , , "Johan Rydberg" Subject: Re: gdb port to or1k Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 22:15:00 -0000 Message-id: <005f01c0d1fd$cd241940$c64902c1@Javor> References: <00a501c0ce7d$1fa4c5e0$bb4902c1@Javor> <5mhezbmi6i.fsf@jtc.redback.com> <004b01c0cee8$5617aaa0$e54902c1@Javor> <5mhez69uqr.fsf@jtc.redback.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-04/msg00247.html > I believe that Andrew Cagney mentioned the ser-* abstraction GBD uses > for serial ports. It may be necessary to do something equivalent for > parallel ports. We would really appreciate that. And, like Damjan said -- parallel ports are becomming more and more used. > Since the ioctl's used by serial tty's is much more standardized on > UNIX and UNIX-like systems (e.g. sgtty, termio or termios), support > for all is located in one source file ser-unix.c. For parallel, we > might need par-hp.c, par-sun.c, etc. It won't be a requirement for > you to supply implementations for all platforms, just that the scheme > be extensible and not preclude other people adding support for their > platforms. Our interface is designed in a way, that it needs 8 outputs and 3 inputs. This can be accomplished by centronics (oldest parallel port mode) and is fully supported by IOCTLs (LP driver). But, this kind of interface would be pretty slow. It would be much better if we use INP and OUTP, where port addresses and interface is same for all parallel ports. It would be nice if this faster option would be available for at least most popular hosts (Linux, win, sun). Looking it long term for GDB - parallel port can be much faster (especially bidirectional - EPP or ECP) than serial ports or ethernet, so many vendors may choose it as a base for their remote protocol. Marko