home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.accessus.net!news
- From: shappel@accessus.net (Scott Happel)
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
- Subject: Re: UART 16650
- Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 02:13:12 GMT
- Organization: accessU.S.
- Message-ID: <312fc52d.11982224@204.248.93.100>
- References: <31214F47.1FFC@ozemail.com.au> <4fsr22$4o1@centurio.m30x.nbg.scn.de> <4gf6b3$v5d@mips.pfalz.de> <4gkaj5$i5f@hg.oro.net>
- Reply-To: shappel@accessus.net
- NNTP-Posting-Host: bville-pm2-1/110.accessus.net
- X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99d/32.182
-
- estarry@oro.net (Ed Starry) wrote:
-
- >naddy@mips.pfalz.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote about {Re: UART 16650} in
- >'comp.dcom.modems'...
- >
- >~> the only difference between the 16550 and the 16650:
- >~> The 16550 has a 16 bytes buffer and the 16650 has a 32 bytes buffer !
- >=================
- >
- >~There's also the Texas Instruments 16750 which comes with 64 bytes of
- >~FIFO and automatic hardware flow control.
- >
- >~Christian 'naddy' Weisgerber naddy@mips.pfalz.de
- >===================
- >
- > These large FIFO buffer sizes and we still have to suffer with everyone
- >using an 8250 for uploading. Who cares how big a Rx Buffer is if no one will
- >use these big FIFO buffers to Tx/Upload with!
- >
- > Ed...
- >
- Ed, I really don't follow your comment...Are you suggesting that a buffered uart
- is not helpful? I must be misunderstanding your message, because that is crazy!
-
- Scott
- shappel@accessus.net
-