Re: [MiNT] Detecting dialup connections

[joska@nuts.edu (Jo Even Skarstein)]

On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:25:55 +0200, Michael Schwingen wrote:

> > Why? What problems will this solve?
>
> It bringt more consistency. Currently, you need to know the port names for
> all machines. What names shall the kernel use for additional ports that pop
> up (like ST-ESCC, or other stuff)?[1]

If the ST-ESCC has the same functionality as modem2 on a TT, we call it
modem2.

> I find it more confusing that 'modem1' may point to ports with different
> capabilities, depending on the machine you use. Using these names does not

It shouldn't, that would break the entire idea. It does now however, but I
never said the current names are perfect ;-)

> really help IMHO - when do I use a 'modem' port, and when is a 'serial' port
> more appropriate?

They're called so for historical reasons - take a look at the back of a TT.

> If the port names would tell something about the underlying hardware (like
> mfp0, scc0, etc.), then I *might* see a point in using these names (no, I
> don't porpose using these names).

It sounds like a good idea to me :-) ttySmodem2?? ;-)

> Using names like ttyS0 makes it easy to detect all serial ports present,
> regardless of the hardware, and it enables something like
>
> for i in /dev/ttyS*; do
>  ... configure port
> done
>
> in init scripts etc. without requiring modifications for new hardware.

I admit this is an advantage, but there are better ways to do this. See my
posting from yesterday. Just renaming the devices won't give you any details
about baudrates, handshake or other properties.


/*
** Jo Even Skarstein    http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~josk/
**
**    beer - maria mckee - atari falcon - babylon 5
*/