From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267440AbUHXKwp (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 06:52:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267449AbUHXKwp (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 06:52:45 -0400 Received: from mail.math.TU-Berlin.DE ([130.149.12.212]:22271 "EHLO mail.math.TU-Berlin.DE") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267440AbUHXKwe (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 06:52:34 -0400 From: Thomas Richter Message-Id: <200408241052.MAA09594@cleopatra.math.tu-berlin.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH] NetMOS 9805 ParPort interface In-Reply-To: <20040823113206.7ca77d79.akpm@osdl.org> To: Andrew Morton Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:52:14 +0200 (CEST) CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL100 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Andrew, hi Marcelo, sorry, my time is currently pretty limited. So here we go: i) Apply the following to drivers/parport_pc.c: /* snip */ --- parport_pc.c.old Tue Aug 24 11:53:22 2004 +++ parport_pc.c Tue Aug 24 12:12:31 2004 @@ -2636,6 +2636,10 @@ netmos_9805, netmos_9815, netmos_9855, + netmos_9735, + netmos_9835, + netmos_9755, + netmos_9715 }; @@ -2709,6 +2713,10 @@ /* netmos_9805 */ { 1, { { 0, -1 }, } }, /* untested */ /* netmos_9815 */ { 2, { { 0, -1 }, { 2, -1 }, } }, /* untested */ /* netmos_9855 */ { 2, { { 0, -1 }, { 2, -1 }, } }, /* untested */ + /* netmos_9735 */ { 1, { { 2, 3 }, } }, /* untested */ + /* netmos_9835 */ { 1, { { 2, 3 }, } }, /* untested */ + /* netmos_9755 */ { 2, { { 0, 1 }, { 2, 3 },} }, /* untested */ + /* netmos_9715 */ { 2, { { 0, 1 }, { 2, 3 },} }, /* untested */ }; static struct pci_device_id parport_pc_pci_tbl[] = { @@ -2786,6 +2794,14 @@ PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, netmos_9815 }, { PCI_VENDOR_ID_NETMOS, PCI_DEVICE_ID_NETMOS_9855, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, netmos_9855 }, + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_NETMOS, PCI_DEVICE_ID_NETMOS_9735, + PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, netmos_9735 }, + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_NETMOS, PCI_DEVICE_ID_NETMOS_9835, + PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, netmos_9835 }, + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_NETMOS, PCI_DEVICE_ID_NETMOS_9755, + PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, netmos_9755 }, + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_NETMOS, PCI_DEVICE_ID_NETMOS_9715, + PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, netmos_9715 }, { 0, } /* terminate list */ }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(pci,parport_pc_pci_tbl); /* snip */ and the following to include/linux/pci_ids.h: /* snip */ --- pci_ids.h.old Tue Aug 24 12:05:44 2004 +++ pci_ids.h Tue Aug 24 12:15:21 2004 @@ -2313,6 +2313,8 @@ #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_NETMOS_9815 0x9815 #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_NETMOS_9835 0x9835 #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_NETMOS_9855 0x9855 +#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_NETMOS_9755 0x9755 +#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_NETMOS_9715 0x9715 #define PCI_SUBVENDOR_ID_EXSYS 0xd84d #define PCI_SUBDEVICE_ID_EXSYS_4014 0x4014 /* snip */ NetMOS 9805 support is already in the kernel, this patch adds the support for the missing 9735,9855,9755 and 9715 chips. And another remark: The 9735 and 9835 seem to be chips with serial *and* parallel interfaces, so I suppose they are already claimed somewhere in the serial driver. I don't know whether this causes any problems. I'm sorry that I can't test, I've only a 9805 here. Any idea how these "dual" chips have to be handled by the kernel? So long, Thomas