Re: [Linuxconsole-dev] Progress on Sapphire

[Dominik K. <dom...@un...>]

On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 05:50:43AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:

> How will this differ from the 2.2.12 patch I just generated?  We may be
> unnecessarily duplicating work here...

The 2.2.1 patch of mine had much more in it then just simple vt102
related fixes (some of the control sequences are for vt220 and up).
But i guess they can stay. So if you'll send me your version of the patch,
i will base the 2.2 branch on that.

One question arise: should i bother to backport the 2.2 stuff to 2.0?
Given the fact that 2.0 is still seen as somewhat more stable than
2.2 and that it appears to be a one-timer (since there won't be too
many new 2.0 release).  I would say yes.

> BTW, in the revised console_codes(4) page, I refer to the existing
> console as `version 1'.  You and I are working on `version 2', emulation
> patches only.  Versions 3 and up will be the big rewrite.

VT320 terminals provide a secondary and tertiary DA, which i am likely to
implement to give the user-land an idea about the version of the console
emulator.

Secondary DA:

Request:  CSI > 0 c
Reply:    CSI > 41 ; Pv ; 0 c     (where Pv is the firmware revision)

Tertiary DA:

Request:  CSI = 0 c
Reply:    DCS ! | D...D ST        (where D...D is the device id)

Haven figured out a use for the tertiary DA yet.  Using the hostid
as device id has the same implications as the Unique Processor ID
of Pentium III cpus (ignoring the fact that hostid is in widespread
use in the Unix world)

Comments?
  Dominik
-- 
  Networking Group,  Hospital of Johannes Gutenberg-University                  
  Obere Zahlbacher Straße 69, 55101 Mainz, Germany                              
  Tel: +49 (0)6131 17-2482   FAX: +49 (0)6131 17-5521