Re: [patch/rfc 2.6.20-git] parport reports physical devices

2007-02-24 Thread David Brownell
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 1:10 pm, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > There are probably good reasons (== deep hardware braindamage on older > > systems that are now hard to find) for the strange init sequencing in > > that code, but I can't see why they should prevent splitting out > > > > (a) devi

Re: [patch/rfc 2.6.20-git] parport reports physical devices

2007-02-24 Thread David Brownell
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 1:10 pm, Jean Delvare wrote: > Here is the naive patch I have come up with. It does the job, even > though it is not clean by any means. But as you said, it's certainly not > worse than the current state, so I hope we can still apply it. One glitch I noticed: on drive

Re: [patch/rfc 2.6.20-git] parport reports physical devices

2007-02-20 Thread Jean Delvare
Hi David, On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:40:30 -0800, David Brownell wrote: > On Monday 19 February 2007 6:18 am, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:08:07 -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > > Currently a parport_driver can't get a handle on the device node for the > > > underl

Re: [patch/rfc 2.6.20-git] parport reports physical devices

2007-02-19 Thread David Brownell
On Monday 19 February 2007 6:18 am, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi David, > > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:08:07 -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > Currently a parport_driver can't get a handle on the device node for the > > underlying parport (PNPACPI, PCI, etc). That prevents correct placement > > of sysfs c

Re: [patch/rfc 2.6.20-git] parport reports physical devices

2007-02-19 Thread Jean Delvare
Hi David, On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:08:07 -0800, David Brownell wrote: > Currently a parport_driver can't get a handle on the device node for the > underlying parport (PNPACPI, PCI, etc). That prevents correct placement > of sysfs child nodes, which can affect things like power management. > > This

Re: [patch/rfc 2.6.20-git] parport reports physical devices

2007-02-18 Thread David Brownell
On Sunday 18 February 2007 9:28 pm, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:08:07 -0800 David Brownell wrote: > > > Currently a parport_driver can't get a handle on the device node for the > > underlying parport (PNPACPI, PCI, etc). That prevents correct placement > > of sysfs child nodes, w

Re: [patch/rfc 2.6.20-git] parport reports physical devices

2007-02-18 Thread Randy Dunlap
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:08:07 -0800 David Brownell wrote: > Currently a parport_driver can't get a handle on the device node for the > underlying parport (PNPACPI, PCI, etc). That prevents correct placement > of sysfs child nodes, which can affect things like power management. > > This patch reso

[patch/rfc 2.6.20-git] parport reports physical devices

2007-02-18 Thread David Brownell
Currently a parport_driver can't get a handle on the device node for the underlying parport (PNPACPI, PCI, etc). That prevents correct placement of sysfs child nodes, which can affect things like power management. This patch resolves that issue for non-legacy configurations: * "struct parpor