On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 22:17:52 -0500 (EST) 
 Andrew Gillham <gillhaa@ghost.whirlpool.com> wrote:

 > Considering the number of parallel port devices out there, shouldn't
 > lpt really be a device that attaches to a "parallel port bus?"
 > I would potentially see devices like these available:

....as cgd mentioned somewhere else... the best thing, probably, is to
implement the parallel port as a tty, and use line disciplines for
everything.  "Why aren't ppp and slip devices off the serial port?" :-)

 > 	ppbus0 at ... 0x378
 > 	ppbus1 at ... 0x278
 > 	lpt0 at ppbus0 ...
 > 	zip0 at ppbus0 ...
 > 	quickcam0 at ppbus0 ...
 > 	plip0 at ppbus0 ...
 > 	dongle0 at ppbus0 ...
 > 	xircom0 at ppbus0 ...
 > 	blinky0 at ppbus0 ...
 > 	audio0 at ppbus0 ...
 > 
 > Ok, I can't think of anymore right now.. :)  Anyway, my point is that
 > a parallel port can be quite a bit more than a printer port, so why
 > restrict it to being an 'lpt' port?  There is "normal", EPP, and ECP
 > to consider as well.
 > 
 > -Andrew

Jason R. Thorpe                                       thorpej@nas.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center                               Home: 408.866.1912
NAS: M/S 258-6                                          Work: 415.604.0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035                                Pager: 415.428.6939