From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 14:07:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 14:07:41 -0400 Received: from mailout03.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.81]:28170 "EHLO mailout03.sul.t-online.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 14:07:31 -0400 Message-ID: <3BAB8246.A688EF44@t-online.de> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 20:09:10 +0200 From: Gunther.Mayer@t-online.de (Gunther Mayer) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.6-ac5 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] parport_pc.c PnP BIOS sanity check In-Reply-To: <3BAAD796.A766FBEC@yahoo.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)@localhost.localdomain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Thomas Hood wrote: > > I'm still wondering why this function in parport_pc.c rejects dma > values of zero. Is DMA0 not usable by the parallel port for some > reason? I should think that if the PnP BIOS returns a dma of zero > then it means that the parallel port is using DMA0. Sorry if I'm > being obtuse. // Thomas Hood 1) I think I saw some BIOS report DMA0 for "none" (could even have been ACPI which is returning PNP formatted legacy resource data). 2) I have never seen DMA0 for parport configured by a BIOS. 3) Try "lssuperio" if you want the real hardware thing. This qualifies the code as it is as a sanity check.