> > Patrick send me a newer version of the diff with better documentation. > > > > And that makes the same is clear to me. At least one of these flags > > should be changed to make sure it is narrowly specific to this > > particular defective chip implementation. > > > > > The comments should certainly not mention the NS16750. > > > > Right. In any case it is not a NS16750. It is a fresh piece of > > hardware, that mostly behaves like a NS16750, except in at least this > > way. (A whole generation of shitty chips are supersets of NS16750). > > > > Iirc. it is 8250.
It absolutely is not an 8250! I estimate the 8250 was last delivered in a new computer around 1995. They became extinct around that year when Intel replaced them with a newer product. Which were buggy in new ways. Calling a thing that arrives in 2016 product an 8250 is like calling a Ford Fiesta a Model T. My grandfather crashed a Model T going down a hill, and in a way that would never happen with a Ford Fiesta (over rev on gearbox without a full-disengage clutch -> piston out the side). Get outside a little more, understand this is not the same era. If it was an 8250, it would not have the extra registers which are probable, and "hint" that additional behaviours are present. And it is worse -- those new behaviours are not just present... almost immediately upon introduction of the (broken) FIFO features in newer chips, BIOS's started initializing th additional behaviours, and so drivers had to cope with them being in existance. It was, and to this day, remains a mess. It is not an 8250, it is something entirely different. If it was an 8250, > 70% of com.c could be deleted. Rest of what you say is muted by that comment -- it is such incredible balony! Things are not simple, 1 line comments like that are not helpful.
