Messages in this thread | | | From | junio@siamese ... | Subject | Re: linux-2.4.12 / linux-2.4.13 parallel port problem | Date | 26 Oct 2001 00:51:48 -0700 |
| |
>>>>> "TW" == Tim Waugh <twaugh@redhat.com> writes:
>> Question: is this intended behaviour? I would think that you would >> normally want to just say irq=auto and let the driver find the io >> address just as it does normally.
TW> It is intended behaviour. 'irq=auto' in this case didn't help because TW> the ECP chipset would not tell us what IRQ it was assigned (it just TW> said "it's set by jumpers, or alternatively I'm not telling you".
This part I do not quite understand. I have an old laptop that was working with parport=auto up to 2.4.10 and then stopped working, just like the original poster's problem description.
>From the original poster's description, 2.4.10 claimed to have detected both address and irq for parport0, while 2.4.12, according to the your response, could not tell that IRQ=7. Do you mean that the logic which made 2.4.10 to claime to have detected IRQ=7 was faulty and the logic in 2.4.12 is being careful not to misdetect?
Message-ID: <3BD6BF43.D347719B@firsdown.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 14:16:51 +0100 From: Dave Garry <daveg@firsdown.demon.co.uk> Subject: linux-2.4.12 / linux-2.4.13 parallel port problem
With kernel 2.4.12 and 2.4.13 the parallel port on my machine looks like this according to dmesg:
parport0: PC-style at 0x378 [PCSPP,TRISTATE] parport0: cpp_daisy: aa5500ff(98) parport0: assign_addrs: aa5500ff(98) parport0: faking semi-colon parport0: Printer, Hewlett-Packard HP LaserJet 1100
Under 2.4.10 is looks like this:
... parport0: PC-style at 0x378 (0x778) [PCSPP,TRISTATE,COMPAT,ECP] parport0: irq 7 detected ...
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |