Riccardo Facchetti (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 01 Apr 1998 15:28:06 +0200
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 1998, Philip Blundell wrote:
> >>handle the 8255 signal lines. How can be useful PARPORT_STATUS_PAPEROUT
> >>for a parallel ZIP drive for example?
> >`Paper out' is what the signal is called. The parallel port was originally
> >designed for printers, and we have to live with it.
> I don' t like to live with it, but if so I was wrong on that too. At first
> I thougth that `Paper out' was how the _printer_ (and not the port) call
> the signal. It made more sense to me. For curiosity it would be nice to
> look a some other pardevice data-sheet (the ZIP drive one for example) to
> see how these lines are called there.
> At this point _not_ rejecting the status proc file in the parport proc
> tree could be not wrong too.
Yes, it was the reason I have implemented it in the parport driver. It
more sense to me to put the parallel port status byte into the parport
than treat it as a lp-only thing.
When I have implemented it, I was a bit uneasy to call the PAPEROUT
"out-of-paper" status because I was afraid that this message is
medium joe-user can misunderstand ! Imagine, for example, a ZIP drive
that, trying to access the ZIP sees an "out-of-paper" from the kernel
was only that the ZIP cartridge was not loaded into the drive :)
Anyway I agree with Tim that this new procfs file, if we decide to add
the parport driver, should wait until 2.3.x.
-- To unsubscribe, send mail to: email@example.com --
-- with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed 30 Dec 1998 - 10:17:34 EST