Dear Graeme Russ,
In message <4ea34086.4030...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>
> One problem I see with XON/XOFF is that if we don't send XOFF at the right
> time, we run the risk of entering a busy loop (any reasonable timeout delay
> for example) and loosing input. So in theory, we would need to send XOFF
> after every getc() ...
That's not true. I am not aware of any significant delays that take
place while receiving characters that belong to a single line. If we
had any of these, we would lose characters all the time - but we
don't.
It should be sufficient to send XOFF after receiving a newline
character.
> Maybe we need disable/enable flow control functions for when we know we
> will be entering a busy loop the consumes serial input (ymodem and kermit
> transfers and readline for example)
This should not be necessary. Actually the implementation should not
need to know about such special cases.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
Compassion -- that's the one things no machine ever had. Maybe it's
the one thing that keeps men ahead of them.
-- McCoy, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4731.3
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
