From: office@voxel.at (Dr. Simon Vogl)
To: sensors@stimpy.netroedge.com
Cc: DI Dr Simon Vogl <simon@voxel.at>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: I2C parallel port adapters drivers
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 06:24:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3FAE7BB1.3090007@voxel.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20031107223611.173c82cc.khali@linux-fr.org>
Jean,
some comments, in no particular order :)
When I wrote the parallel port drivers, the parport api was changing a
lot. Therefore I did not
make use of it. Blocking the parport might be a good idea, but it
introduces another dependency.
Anyway, parport only makes real sense when you want to share your
parport between multiple devices,
say a zip drive. Therefore, a question to the whole sensors list: Is
anyone really using such a setup?
It should be at least be configurable as an option (also think of using
it in embedded devices, where you
wouldn't want to bloat the kernel with such things...)
Also, are there any hardware cracks out there with multiple adapters,
like a home-brew philips adapter
and a velleman kit on two parports?
Just a few special cases to think about...
As for the naming, i2c-parport would conflict with the old i2c-parport
module that is still available in 2.4ish
kernels in the v4l section - maybe i2c-parallel is an option.
Also, have a look at the wealth of i2c drivers that are present in the
2.6 kernels :)
So long,
Simon
Jean Delvare wrote:
>OK, I'll write a unified driver then. Just one more question. Any reason
>to prefer direct I/O access (ELV/Velleman) over parallel-port-style
>programming (i2c-philips-par)? I'd say that the second is preferable,
>but you might have had a reason to use direct access, that I ignore. If
>not, I'll somehow use i2c-philips-par as a base for my unified driver,
>which I'll probably call i2c-parport (since it won't be Philips-specific
>anymore). That driver would support Philips adapters, ELV, Velleman and
>ADM evaluation boards (I have one here for testing).
>
>Thanks a lot for spending some time replying.
>
>
>
--
Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Simon Vogl ! http://www.voxel.at/
VoXel Interaction Design ! office@voxel.at
Breitwiesergutstr. 50 ! +43 650 2323 555
A-4020 Linz - Austria !
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Dr. Simon Vogl" <office@voxel.at>
To: sensors@stimpy.netroedge.com
Cc: DI Dr Simon Vogl <simon@voxel.at>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: I2C parallel port adapters drivers
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 18:38:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3FAE7BB1.3090007@voxel.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20031107223611.173c82cc.khali@linux-fr.org>
Jean,
some comments, in no particular order :)
When I wrote the parallel port drivers, the parport api was changing a
lot. Therefore I did not
make use of it. Blocking the parport might be a good idea, but it
introduces another dependency.
Anyway, parport only makes real sense when you want to share your
parport between multiple devices,
say a zip drive. Therefore, a question to the whole sensors list: Is
anyone really using such a setup?
It should be at least be configurable as an option (also think of using
it in embedded devices, where you
wouldn't want to bloat the kernel with such things...)
Also, are there any hardware cracks out there with multiple adapters,
like a home-brew philips adapter
and a velleman kit on two parports?
Just a few special cases to think about...
As for the naming, i2c-parport would conflict with the old i2c-parport
module that is still available in 2.4ish
kernels in the v4l section - maybe i2c-parallel is an option.
Also, have a look at the wealth of i2c drivers that are present in the
2.6 kernels :)
So long,
Simon
Jean Delvare wrote:
>OK, I'll write a unified driver then. Just one more question. Any reason
>to prefer direct I/O access (ELV/Velleman) over parallel-port-style
>programming (i2c-philips-par)? I'd say that the second is preferable,
>but you might have had a reason to use direct access, that I ignore. If
>not, I'll somehow use i2c-philips-par as a base for my unified driver,
>which I'll probably call i2c-parport (since it won't be Philips-specific
>anymore). That driver would support Philips adapters, ELV, Velleman and
>ADM evaluation boards (I have one here for testing).
>
>Thanks a lot for spending some time replying.
>
>
>
--
Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Simon Vogl ! http://www.voxel.at/
VoXel Interaction Design ! office@voxel.at
Breitwiesergutstr. 50 ! +43 650 2323 555
A-4020 Linz - Austria !
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-05-19 6:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-11-02 12:23 I2C parallel port adapters drivers Jean Delvare
2005-05-19 6:24 ` Jean Delvare
2003-11-07 9:49 ` DI Dr Simon Vogl
2005-05-19 6:24 ` DI Dr Simon Vogl
2003-11-07 21:36 ` Jean Delvare
2005-05-19 6:24 ` Jean Delvare
2003-11-09 17:38 ` Dr. Simon Vogl [this message]
2005-05-19 6:24 ` Dr. Simon Vogl
2003-11-09 21:23 ` Jean Delvare
2005-05-19 6:24 ` Jean Delvare
2003-11-14 1:11 ` Greg KH
2005-05-19 6:24 ` Greg KH
2005-05-19 6:24 ` Mark Studebaker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3FAE7BB1.3090007@voxel.at \
--to=office@voxel.at \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sensors@stimpy.netroedge.com \
--cc=simon@voxel.at \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.