Andrea Arcangeli (andrea@e-mind.com)
Sat, 1 May 1999 01:23:19 +0200 (CEST)
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Tim Waugh wrote:
>Andrea, did I see a mail a few weeks ago about needing an LP_CAREFUL ioctl
>still? Could this be related to that case?
I never had feedback by other people that started complaining about
LP_CAREFUL problems so I am not sure if it was the culprit or not.
>--- linux/drivers/misc/parport_ieee1284_ops.c~ Fri Apr 30 21:56:40 1999
>+++ linux/drivers/misc/parport_ieee1284_ops.c Fri Apr 30 21:57:31 1999
>@@ -124,12 +124,9 @@
> while (count < len) {
> long expire = jiffies + dev->timeout;
> long wait = (HZ + 99) / 100;
>- unsigned char mask = (PARPORT_STATUS_PAPEROUT
>- | PARPORT_STATUS_SELECT
>- | PARPORT_STATUS_ERROR
>+ unsigned char mask = (PARPORT_STATUS_ERROR
> | PARPORT_STATUS_BUSY);
>- unsigned char val = (PARPORT_STATUS_SELECT
>- | PARPORT_STATUS_ERROR
>+ unsigned char val = (PARPORT_STATUS_ERROR
> | PARPORT_STATUS_BUSY);
>
> /* Write the character to the data lines. */
If this patch make differences we need a LP_CAREFUL ioctl to allow
people to go uncareful.
So Juha, let us know if the patch made differences or not ;).
Andrea Arcangeli
-- To unsubscribe, send mail to: linux-parport-request@torque.net --
-- with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri 30 Apr 1999 - 20:07:33 EDT