[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC-2] Configuring Synchronous Interfaces in Linux
Ivan Passos <> écrit :
> Anyhow, the parameters we currently need to configure on our board (the
> PC300) are as follows:
> - Media: V.35, RS-232, X.21, T1, E1

char *lmc_t1_cables[] = {
"V.10/RS423", "EIA530A", "reserved", "X.21", "V.35",
"EIA449/EIA530/V.36", "V.28/EIA232", "none", NULL
(Where it's used btw).
I don't exactly see the point here: do some of your cards supports these
media at the same time ? I would have believed it to be set in stone.

> - Protocol: Frame Relay, (Cisco)-HDLC, PPP, X.25 (not sure whether that is
> already supported by the 'hw' option)

+ Transparent HDLC ?

> - Clock: 'ext' (or 0, which implies external clock) or some numeric value
> > 0 (which implies internal clock); setting it to 'int' would set
> it to some fixed numeric value > 0 (useful for T1/E1 links, just
> to indicate master clock as opposed to slave or 'ext' clock)


> - T1/E1 only:
> - Line code:
> - Frame mode:
> - LBO (T1 only): line-build-out
> - Rx Sensitivity: short-haul or long-haul
> - Active channels: mask that represents the possible 24/32
> channels (timeslots) on a T1/E1 line

May I ask what kind of protocol support you have in mind here ?

> I'm sure that _all_ the other sync cards need to configure the _same_
> parameters (or a subset of them), and there may be cards that need even
> more parameters (but we have to start somewhere ... ;). So having a
> unified interface and making the drivers compliant to it is not that hard
> and surely would help users to dump the currently ridiculous set of
> individual config. tools for these cards (yes, we currently have our own
> pc300cfg, along with the -- not absolute -- "standard" sethdlc utility).
> I'm willing to go for this implementation, but I wanted to know first:
> - whether ifconfig is the right place to do it;

We can pass (media/clock) through his "media" parameter but I won't claim it
to be sexy. So far, I don't see how we may avoid some tool to do all the
required ioctl.

> - where I should create the new ioctl's to handle these new parameters.

drivers/net/wan/sbni.[ch] uses the SIOCDEVPRIVATE range for different things.
The x25 protocol uses the SIOCPROTOPRIVATE. I'd rather avoid both.

> Suggestions / comments are more than welcome.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:51    [W:0.055 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site