[Linux-parport] Re: RFC: add udev support to parport_pc
Jason Dravet
dravet at hotmail.com
Sat Dec 31 13:07:47 EST 2005
Thank you for the reply. Comments inline.
>I would prefer to actually see == 0x378 in the code, because the
>hexademical number is what you see everywhere else, such as the BIOS POST
>and /proc/ioports. This also applies to 0x278 and 0x3BC below.
>
This is what I wanted but I could not figure out how do it. If you tell me
how I will be happy to change it. I tried if (p->base == 0x378) but then
class_device_create does not get executed.
> > + {
> > + class_device_create(parallel_class, NULL, MKDEV(6, 0), NULL,
> > "lp0");
> > + class_device_create(parallel_class, NULL, MKDEV(99, 0), NULL,
> > "parport0");
> > + }
>
>Background info before: Because I burnt my on-board LPT port (applying too
>much volts or milliamps), I bought a dual-slot PCI add-in card. This card
>provides "parport1" and "parport2" at ports at 0xC800 and 0xC00
>(/proc/ioports).
>
The last experience I have with off board cards was about 5 years ago. The
choices for the two parallel ports were 378, 278, or 3BC. I was not aware
that you had flexibility now.
>
>There are a number of problems in your code:
>
>1- testing just for 0x378/0x278/0x3BC is not enough
>
>2- parport0 could be 0xC800 (address may vary) if you do not
> have any onboard LPT ports.
> 2=> that is why I think you should not reserver "lp0"/"parport0"
> for 0x378.
As I said above I was not aware todays off board parallel ports had more
choices. I will see what I can do to fix this. Do you have any
suggestions?
Thanks,
Jason
More information about the Linux-parport
mailing list