On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 16:17:41 +0100
Russell King <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1. Effectively, this just ignores every second break status. We've
> no idea _which_ break interrupt is going to be ignored.
Good point. Would it be better if I forced break_active to zero after
some timeout?
Come to think about it, it's really strange that there's a single bit
indicating both start-of-break and end-of-break. I'll see if I can find
a way to tell the difference.
> 2. it breaks break handling. uart_handle_break returns a value for a
> reason. Use it - don't unconditionally ignore the received
> character.
Ok, I'll fix it.
Out of curiosity, why does it return a value? ;)
Håvard
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
