On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 12:51:48AM -0700, junio@siamese.dhis.twinsun.com wrote:
> >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?
Oh, I see. No, this is a regression. Please try this patch:
--- linux/drivers/parport/ChangeLog.irq Fri Oct 26 10:11:02 2001
+++ linux/drivers/parport/ChangeLog Fri Oct 26 10:37:36 2001
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+2001-10-26 Tim Waugh <twaugh@redhat.com>
+
+ * parport_pc.c (parport_irq_probe): When ECR programmable IRQ
+ support fails, generate interrupts using the FIFO even if we don't
+ want to use the FIFO for real data transfers.
+ (parport_pc_probe_port): Display the ECR address if we have an
+ ECR, not just if we will use the FIFO.
+
--- linux/drivers/parport/parport_pc.c.irq Fri Oct 26 10:11:06 2001
+++ linux/drivers/parport/parport_pc.c Fri Oct 26 10:35:49 2001
@@ -2119,10 +2119,9 @@
if (priv->ecr) {
pb->irq = programmable_irq_support(pb);
- }
- if (pb->modes & PARPORT_MODE_ECP) {
- pb->irq = irq_probe_ECP(pb);
+ if (pb->irq == PARPORT_IRQ_NONE)
+ pb->irq = irq_probe_ECP(pb);
}
if ((pb->irq == PARPORT_IRQ_NONE) && priv->ecr &&
@@ -2255,7 +2254,7 @@
p->private_data = priv;
printk(KERN_INFO "%s: PC-style at 0x%lx", p->name, p->base);
- if (p->base_hi && (p->modes & PARPORT_MODE_ECP))
+ if (p->base_hi && priv->ecr)
printk(" (0x%lx)", p->base_hi);
p->irq = irq;
p->dma = dma;
Tim.
*/
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 31 2001 - 21:00:30 EST