On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:44:29AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 02:55:02PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:49:30AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:55:01PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > > > > I hadn't looked at this driver much before. It sucks that > > > parport_driver ->attach() functions can't fail... > > > > then maybe, we can change the code of parport. currently attach and > > parport_register_driver never fails. we can modify it so that if attach > > fails then parport_register_driver will also fail. will not be that much > > difficult as it has been used only in 13 places. > > your views ? > > > > and since we are discussing parallel ports, few days back i saw one > > post in ubuntuforums that his scanner is not working because of > > lack of ppscsi.I mailed Tim Waugh, but he is not interested to work > > with ppscsi anymore. parallel port scanners are almost a thing of the past > > now. do you think it is worth that i pick up the code and modify > > it for our latest kernel and submit to Greg ? > > If you have some parport hardware, and want to take it on, that would be > great. The code needs a maintainer, and the apis are _really_ old and > messy, as you have found out. what kind of parport hardware will you suggest? regards sudip > > I'll be glad to shephard parport patches to Linus, as I've been doing > that semi-regularly for a few years now, through my char-misc git tree. > > thanks, > > greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
