> If there wasn't a parallel port driver in 2.0, what do all of our
> printers talk to? My printer hooks up to a parallel port, and I can use
> it under Linux at /dev/lp1, so to me, there is a parallel port driver.
>From your logic, one could conclude that 2.0.x contains a
graphics driver because I can see graphics on my screen when I
run X windows or SVGAlib applications. Therefore the kernel MUST
have a video driver.
2.0.x has what is called "Parallel Printer Support". It is NOT
Parallel port support, it is Parallel Printer Support. For
example, a PPA ZIP drive doesn't work with this driver, nor does
anything else, but a printer (or devices that behave as though
they were a printer). There is no EPP/ECP support in 2.0.x
either.
PLIP also uses the parallel port, with it's own driver. It talks
direct.
2.1.x on the other hand, has Parallel port support, both PC
style, and otherwise. This is a generic low level driver. EPP
and ECP support are in there too (at least they were last I
checked). The printer driver, talks to the low level parallel
port driver I believe (guess).
PLIP as well as any other drivers that use the parallel port have
been revamped to talk to the low level parallel port driver
instead of touching the bare metal.
So, 2.1.x differs greatly from 2.0.x in terms of how the parallel
port is used.
Disclaimer: All of the above is based on my understanding of how
the new kernel works, not from some detailed analasys. I could
be completely full of shit. I don't think I am though, however
if I am, I'm sure someone will inform me of this.
When in doubt, read the source Luke! ;o)
-- Mike A. Harris - Computer Consultant - Linux advocateEscape from the confines of Microsoft's operating systems and push your PC to it's limits with LINUX - a real OS. http://www.redhat.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html