home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!concert!ais!bruce
- From: bruce@ais.com
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
- Subject: Re: Better UARTs?
- Message-ID: <1996Feb16.015106.8732@ais>
- Date: 16 Feb 96 01:51:06 EST
- References: <4g0hq5$166u@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>
- Organization: Applied Information Systems, Chapel Hill, NC
-
- In article <4g0hq5$166u@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>, davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) writes:
- > I heard about the 16650 UART some time ago, which has 32 byte FIFOs
- > rather than 16. While it sounded interesting, it also didn't seem
- > like something I "just had to have." However, now I've seen some
- > specs on the 16750 UART. Got to try one of these.
- >
- > It seems that in addition to a 64 byte FIFO (no surprise) it will do
- > the hardware handshake for you! Now the slowest system around will
- > not lose data because the UART will drop RTS when the FIFO is almost
- > full, and will stop sending if the CTS drops. This is where the
- > logic should have been all along, and all I want to know is where to
- > find one.
- >
- > Any experience with these? The larger buffer is nice, but the flow
- > control changes the whole dynamics of how UARTs are handled.
-
- I _DO_ hope that the flow control is selectable -- there are times when
- you do NOT want hardware flow control (most notably when you are talking
- to hardware that doesn't support it). Also, there are several flavors
- of hardware flow control; although RTS/CTS is the most common and seems
- to be the most reasonable interpretation of the signals, methods such as
- DTR/DSR also exist. But DTR/DSR can have even worse interaction problems
- than RTS/CTS if you are talking to equipment that doesn't support it --
- often the behavior on dropping DTR is to close the connection altogether.
-
- Bruce C. Wright
-