lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Parallel, IEEE 1284, Zip drive
On 10 Apr 96 at 8:44, Grant R. Guenther wrote:

> > > It is certainly worth thinking about, but I don't know if it will gain us
> > > very much. If all the devices were 1284 compliant, then it would be
> > > possible to design a 1284 API and implement drivers for the different
> > > kinds of physical ports, but PLIP isn't a 1284 device, and from my
> > > work implementing the driver for the ZIP I don't think it is either.
> >
> > I think "port driver" was not meant to be "parallel SCSI
> > interface"...
>
> I don't believe I made any such suggestion - certainly not in the paragraph
> you are responding to. IEEE 1284 is a signalling standard for devices
> on a "parallel" bus. It implies an API (just *like* SCSI is a signalling
> standard that also implies a particular programming model). To that
> extent, it would be meaningful to devise such an API and implement low-level
> drivers for the different parallel ports out there ...

Silly me; I thought the number was the SCSI controller chip used in
ZIP drives, but it's obviously an IEEE standard.

>
> But, Albert seemed to suggest that the ZIP drive, PLIP, and the status
> bars could be encompassed by this new API / driver structure.
>
> Without some sort of common API or common hardware spec it is meaningless to
> talk about writing a device driver. PLIP, PPA and 1284 all use
> the bus in entirely different ways, so there is little hope for a common API
> that includes the specific devices that Albert mentions.
>
> But, it would still be a good idea to implement 1284 drivers for the
> different ports - just don't expect non-1284 "devices" to be able to use
> them.

Well that's the difference between a hardware interface and a
protocol. You can do much more when playing with the single lines
than you can do when sending data to the parallel port. But I still
think a useful API can be written. Unfortunately I don't know all
these specs...

>
> By the way, since you mention "repeated implementation of EPP modes", do
> we actually have *any* implementations around ? I'd certainly like to
> see what people have done ...

I guess not, but maybe several people want to write one. (Have you
seen how many different dead ends there are in the kernel? One for
panic, one for wrong CPU type, one for halt(), ...)

>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Grant R. Guenther grant@torque.net
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ulrich Windl
(Once I've read about a "280" in a book. After some time I've found
out that this was a misprinted "Z80"...)


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.034 / U:0.960 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site