Re: [PARPORT] Re: [patch] parport-arca-16 (fwd)

Andrea Arcangeli (andrea@e-mind.com)
Sat, 10 Oct 1998 15:13:23 +0200 (CEST)


On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, David Campbell wrote:

>> {
>> struct net_local *nl;
>> - int iosize = (PAR_DATA(dev) == 0x3bc) ? 3 : 8;
>> + struct pardevice *pardev;
>>
>> - /* Check region before the probe */
>> - if (check_region(PAR_DATA(dev), iosize) < 0)
>> - return -ENODEV;
>> + dev->irq = pb->irq;
>> + dev->base_addr = pb->base;
>> + if (pb->irq == -1) {

This is wrong btw, the right check is for PARPORT_IRQ_NONE and not for -1.

>> + printk(KERN_INFO "plip: %s has no IRQ.\n", pb->name);
>> return -ENODEV;
>
>That difference is 2.0.x kernels appear to check for the presence of the
>parallel port while 2.1.x kernels will pass a parport structure when a port is
>found. Hence this "if" statement is redundant and should be removed.

It' s redundant if the 2.1 plip driver can run without irqs.

Andrea Arcangeli

-
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/