Subject: Re: Possible new device name
To: Andrew Gillham <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
Date: 01/20/1997 19:28:03
On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 22:17:52 -0500 (EST)
Andrew Gillham <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
Jason R. Thorpe email@example.com
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