From: Marko Mäkelä (marko.makela_at_hut.fi)
Date: 2004-01-25 15:51:03
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:06:56PM +0100, Daniel Kahlin wrote: > Oh, sorry I missed that it was writing you asked for. Over5 doesn't use > normal RTS/CTS or Xon/Xoff handshaking, so write doesn't really need > timeouts. I see. I'm using Xon/Xoff handshaking when sending to the C2N232 adapter, and no handshaking when receiving. > Do you really need to know the exact offset of the timeout though? Well, it would only be a status display for the user. I've disabled it now in the Amiga version. I also rewrote the initialization and cleanup routines, to see if the crashes go away. I had allocated the IOExtSer struct statically, and not with CreatePort and CreateExtIO as it probably should be done. > It would be a big improvement over single byte writes if you could just > send a block, and then maybe resend that block if there were errors. That is not an option when emulating tape via a microcontroller that has only 128 bytes of RAM. I have never had problems with lost bytes or errors. Hmm, it would be interesting to drive the C2N232 via a pair of fast modems, but I guess that modems faster than 2400 bps would introduce all sorts of handshaking and buffering problems. :-) Marko PS: My KIM-1 Hypertape encoder works now. Any KIM-1 users who are interested in recording a test WAV file on audio tape and loading it on the KIM-1? Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.