On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 01:38:13PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Can hotplug handle this from a PCI id table ?
There is a PCI id table in parport_serial, yes (if that's what you're
asking).
Tim.
*/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PARPORT_SERIAL_MODULE
> - if (!ret)
> - request_module ("parport_serial");
> -#endif
> -
> return ret;
> }
>
> --- linux/drivers/parport/ChangeLog.orig Wed Jul 4 13:30:32 2001
> +++ linux/drivers/parport/ChangeLog Wed Jul 4 13:32:01 2001
> @@ -0,0
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 07:32:42AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Could you remove the request_module() from parport_pc ?
Yes.
Here is a patch against 2.4.5-ac24.
Tim.
*/
2001-07-04 Tim Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* drivers/parport/parport_pc.c: Don't load parport_serial.
*
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Tim Waugh wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 10:30:41AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> > > - change parport_pc so that it doesn't request parport_serial at
> > > init. In this case, how will parport_serial get loaded at all?
> > > Perhaps with some recommended /etc/m
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 06:59:11PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> This would be a bit bad, because it would require people to guess
> whether they might have a card that parport_serial can drive and/or
> try loading the module to see what happens.
Not necessarily. The module has a PCI device t
>- change parport_pc so that it doesn't request parport_serial at
> init. In this case, how will parport_serial get loaded at all?
> Perhaps with some recommended /etc/modules.conf lines (perhaps
> parport_lowlevel{1,2,3,...})?
This would be a bit bad, because it would require people to guess
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 10:30:41AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > - change parport_pc so that it doesn't request parport_serial at
> > init. In this case, how will parport_serial get loaded at all?
> > Perhaps with some recommended /etc/modules.conf lines (perhaps
> > parport_lowlevel{1
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Tim Waugh wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 03:17:32AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> > If the initialization of parport_serial fails, we obviously get an
> > error message, which is really annoying:
>
> [This is different to the issue that is fixed in the -ac tree abou
Hi lkml,
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 02:55:31PM +0200, Simon Huggins wrote:
> post-rm rmmod parport-serial
post-remove rmmod parport-serial
even.
Simon.
--
* "Oops, yes, we now return you to your regularly scheduled kgcc*
| wars." -- Malcolm Beattie |
Hi lkml,
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 10:23:03AM +0100, Tim Waugh wrote:
> > If the initialization of parport_serial fails, we obviously get an
> > error message, which is really annoying:
> [This is different to the issue that is fixed in the -ac tree about
> parport_serial getting probed for even wh
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 03:17:32AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> If the initialization of parport_serial fails, we obviously get an
> error message, which is really annoying:
[This is different to the issue that is fixed in the -ac tree about
parport_serial getting probed for even when disable
Hi,
parport_pc is now trying to load parport_serial.o at init_module() time.
~
If the initialization of parport_serial fails, we obviously get an error
message, which is really annoying:
0x378: FIFO is 16 bytes
0x378: writeIntrThreshold is 16
0x378: readIntrThreshold is 16
parport0: PC-style
12 matches
Mail list logo
