[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201504102024.24220.linux@rainbow-software.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 20:24:23 +0200
From: Ondrej Zary <linux@...nbow-software.org>
To: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, dan.carpenter@...cle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH WIP] parport: add device model
On Friday 10 April 2015 16:30:38 Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> This is work-in-progree, not for applying to any tree. Posting now for
> your comments so that I know if I am in the proper track.
>
> in parport_register_driver() driver is registered but i am not linking
> anywhere the device with the driver, but yet when I am testing this
> patch I am seeing in sys tree that parport0 is linked with
> the lp driver. Is it done in the device core? I am missing this step
> somewhere.
>
> In parport_claim() the attach is unchecked as of now, I think we will
> need my initial patch series of monitoring the attach return value along
> with it.
>
> while testing I am getting NULL dereference with daisy.c, and after
> disabling PARPORT_1284 , I am getting some new errors. so if you are
> testing this patch please keep in mind that still lots of work is
> pending.
> My main intention to post it now is to know if my approach is correct.
Many newer parallel port devices support plug&play (IEEE1284 device ID) but
Linux never supported it properly. The ID is probed and even the class is
printed in the kernel log (drivers/parport/probe.c) but there's no support
for module autoloading based on that.
This could be a good opportunity to add this support. I was thinking about
this while playing with some parport webcams recently.
--
Ondrej Zary
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists