Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-32,: Re: parport_pc patch and question

# Re: parport_pc patch and question

Tim Waugh (tim@cyberelk.demon.co.uk)
Tue, 10 Aug 1999 20:47:44 +0100 (GMT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Lars Prieske: "(no subject)"
- Previous message: Dunlap, Randy: "RE: USB/QuickCam"

On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Vladimir Chernyshov wrote:

> --- parport_pc_old.c Tue Aug 10 09:46:10 1999
> +++ parport_pc.c Tue Aug 10 15:23:03 1999
> @@ -1879,7 +1879,7 @@
> if (p->irq != PARPORT_IRQ_NONE)
> free_irq(p->irq, p);
> release_region(p->base, 3);
> - if (p->size > 3);
> + if (p->size > 3)
> release_region(p->base + 3, p->size - 3);
> if (p->modes & PARPORT_MODE_ECP)
> release_region(p->base_hi, 3);

D'oh! How embarrassing..

> BTW, in recent development kernels parport_pc.o has stopped to detect
> EPP modes of parralel port if I set it up in CMOS-setup as "EPP+ECP".
> In 2.2.10 it correctly detects all combinations of EPP. Is it a bug or
> a feature? (my mainboard is based on Intel's VX chipset)

It might be caused by a bug, in a sense. The detection code in 2.3 checks
for a common bug in Intel chipsets. See parport_EPP_supported (in
parport_pc.c) for more details, or David Campbell's id_probe, which is
where the logic came from.

Basically, ECP+EPP is to be avoided, or at least so I'm told.

Tim.
*/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Lars Prieske: "(no subject)"
- Previous message: Dunlap, Randy: "RE: USB/QuickCam"