I personally have an older 4x4x20 backpack cd-rw (FYI - i've been pretty
happy with it; it actually works best under Linux, in my experience). It
is Model #: 190130, S/N 19202416, E/N 00934, and uses the "series 6
driver" (it actually has this printed on the underbelly of the drive).
As a user, this means i have to modprobe the bpck6.o driver before i
load the pg.o driver to use this drive. In fact, (THIS IS IMPORTANT) if
i load the bpck.o instead of the bpck6.o (which it lets me do!), and
then try to modprobe pg.o, i get an insmod error message similar to what
you've included (thanx!). In my RedHat 8.0 installation there are two
backpack drivers included as part of what i'd call a normal
installation: bpck6.o and bpck.o. I'd be surprised if your distro didn't
include both drivers as well.
How this is relevant:
What you'll want to do is carefully flip over your backpack cdrom drive,
check the info for your drive and jot it all down. Then try a 'modprobe
-v bpck' in place of the bpck6 driver, as you've mentioned. If that
doesn't work, post back to the list with this additional identifying
information for your drive. And then, maybe one of the kind folks at
MicroSolutions who monitors this list periodically will grace you with a
more enlightened solution, as they have been known to do in the past
AFAIK. Also, check SUSE's bug reports at their website (presumably) for
any known issues regarding this drive problem. If you do find something
that works, i would recommend posting back to the list with a brief
solution, for posterity.
If i have erred, or someone knows better, please let us all know.
- gabriel
On Sat, 2003-01-18 at 20:29, Michael Wester wrote:
> Hello all, I'm relatively new to Linux, not computers. I am having
> some problems getting a BackpackCDROM to work with a linux laptop. The
> machine is Toshiba Portege 3020=pentium 300. OS is Suse8.1.
>
> Trying to get the thing to work I do the following-and as you see it
> chokes on installing pcd:
>
> linux:~ # modprobe paride
> linux:~ # modprobe bpck6
> linux:~ # modprobe pcd
> /lib/modules/2.4.19-4GB/kernel/drivers/block/paride/pcd.o: init_module:
> Operation not permitted
> Hint: insmod errors can be caused by incorrect module parameters,
> including invalid IO or IRQ parameter s.
> You may find more information in syslog or the output from dmesg
> /lib/modules/2.4.19-4GB/kernel/drivers/block/paride/pcd.o: insmod
> /lib/modules/2.4.19-4GB/kernel/driver s/block/paride/pcd.o failed
> /lib/modules/2.4.19-4GB/kernel/drivers/block/paride/pcd.o: insmod pcd
> failed
>
> The (what I believe is relevant) output of dmesg is:
>
> paride: version 1.06 installed (parport)
> bpck6: BACKPACK Protocol Driver V2.0.2ac
> bpck6: Copyright 2001 by Micro Solutions, Inc., DeKalb IL. USA
> paride: bpck6 registered as protocol 0
> pcd: pcd version 1.07, major 46, nice 0
> parport0: PC-style at 0x378 (0x778) [PCSPP,TRISTATE]
> parport0: irq 7 detected
> pcd0: Sharing parport0 at 0x378
> pcd0: BACKPACK Protocol Driver V2.0.2ac
> pcd0: Copyright 2001 by Micro Solutions, Inc., DeKalb IL.
> pcd0: BACKPACK 2.0.2ac, Micro Solutions BACKPACK Drive at 0x378
> pcd0: Unit: 45 Mode:1 (8-bit) Delay 0
> pcd0: identify completion: alt=0x88 stat=0x88 err=0x188 loop=160001
> phase=136
> pcd0: Request sense before command: alt=0x88 stat=0x88 err=0x188
> loop=160001 phase=136
> pcd: No CD-ROM drive found
> Uniform CD-ROM driver unloaded
> linux:~ #
>
>
> My only guess is that on this older, slower computer, the delay setting of
> 0 may be inappropriate? If so, how do I designate this? at the time
> I run the modprobe command? Anyone else have any ideas? I saw there was
> a thread in the archive in November that was talking about a similar problem
> using the BackpackCDROM in Suse8.1 and the choking on the pcd load was
> attributed to the PCMCIA interface. I am not using this interface, but
> the parallel port. Maybe it's something related to the Suse package?
> Thanks in advance for any insight.
>
> Mike
-- 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 2b29 : Sun Jan 19 2003 - 16:25:46 EST