Jason Thorpe wrote:

> Anyhow, I do have some stylistic/architectural suggestions...
> 
> In lptreg.h, don't declare a global "LPT" pointer to the register union.  
> In the places where's it used, you have the softc available.  Probably 
> better to just carry the pointer to the registers in the softc and 
> reference them that way.  No functional difference, just slightly better 
> style.  It's a nit :-)

Point taken. I rattled this driver up just this morning, so there's
bound to be some rough edges!

> Also, every device with a devsw entry should get a "needs-flag".  In the 
> case of the lpt driver, you really need to use NLPT in the cdevsw entry.  
> "needs-flag" just generates a "1" or "0" based on whether or not the 
> driver is included in the kernel.  The macros that expand to the switch 
> table rely on this number being accurate.  With the conf.c below, a 
> kernel without the lpt driver will fail to link because the "1" forces 
> the macros to generate references to the non-existent driver entry points.

Yup. I noted this myself when I tried to recompile a kernel without lpt.
I emailed chuck to include the needs-flag change if he adds lpt to the
main tree.

> Anyhow, these are just trivial little nits... I think it's totally cool 
> that you did this :-)

<grin> Amazing what you can do if you take a day off work sick :)

Cheers, Steve