> Does anyone have any strong objections to my removing the port reset at
> initialisation? I'll make sure that tunelp can cause a reset via lp
> (which I think is also broken at the moment).
Here's a patch which does this. tunelp -r still works. Shall I send it
to Linus?
Tim.
*/
Index: linux/drivers/parport/parport_pc.c
diff -u linux/drivers/parport/parport_pc.c:1.1.1.8 linux/drivers/parport/parport_pc.c:1.15
--- linux/drivers/parport/parport_pc.c:1.1.1.8 Tue Nov 9 09:20:00 1999
+++ linux/drivers/parport/parport_pc.c Tue Dec 21 11:50:38 1999
@@ -1687,12 +1687,6 @@
parport_pc_write_data(p, 0);
parport_pc_data_forward (p);
- parport_pc_write_control(p, PARPORT_CONTROL_SELECT);
- udelay (50);
- parport_pc_write_control(p,
- PARPORT_CONTROL_SELECT
- | PARPORT_CONTROL_INIT);
- udelay (50);
/* Now that we've told the sharing engine about the port, and
found out its characteristics, let the high-level drivers
-
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/