| ??? 02/09/06 17:08 Read: times |
#109623 - XOFF Clarification Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Just to add to my previous comment, and perhaps to save someone a wasted effort. Recall I discussed how sending XOFF to a PC was futile since the PC would continue to send the data in it's FIFO before the XOFF was honored. My algorithm at one time sent an XOFF in response to any data received after my input buffer trip point was surpassed. So if the PC sent 100 bytes after my trip point, I sent 100 XOFFs in response. It didn't help... just in case anyone had the idea to try that.
If you have enough money you can fight fire with fire by either designing an 8051 circuit with tons of RAM or using an external UART with a FIFO in it. Or simply refuse to talk to Windows PC's ;-) My old DOS test box running PCPLUS honors XOFF *immediately*. Don't know what the UART is in it though. GB |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| XON/XOFF control | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| what do you need to know? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| XON/XOFF control | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| What's the problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Buffer overflow | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Standard Keil implementation! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Software flow control in depth | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| nice! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Bad 16550s | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| re: Bad 16550s | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| XOFF Clarification | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Software flow control in hardware | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Neat | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Opposite of SMS? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Pesky hardware FIFOs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Bad 16550's and Control | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| then join me and score it | 01/01/70 00:00 |