[ On Tuesday, June 26, 2001 at 18:38:01 (-0400), Vance Dereksen wrote: ]
> Subject: IBM PC Server
> 
> Hi.  I have an IBM PC Server that has the parallel port at 0x3bc and
> interrupts at 7.  (I believe these are the correct settings for the first
> parallel port.)  The way NetBSD seems to want to recognize it is as the
> third port (lp2?) and uses polling.  It then later complains about a stray
> interrupt 7.  What am I doing wrong?

I don't know that you're doing anything wrong.

I think I have a similar problem with my IBM PC Server Model 325. 

	pcib0 at pci0 dev 19 function 0
	pcib0: Intel 82371SB PCI-to-ISA Bridge (PIIX3) (rev. 0x01)
	[[....]]
	isa0 at pcib0
	[[....]]
	lptprobe: mask ff data 55 failed
	lptprobe: mask ff data 55 failed
	lpt2 at isa0 port 0x3bc-0x3bf: polled

That's with nothing plugged into it, FYI.

In my kernel config file I have just:

	lpt0    at isa? port 0x378 irq 7        # standard PC parallel ports
	lpt1    at isa? port 0x278
	lpt2    at isa? port 0x3bc

The manual says the default parallel port configuration is 0x3BC, IRQ 7,
just as you've described, and as the kernel seems to find it.  I don't
remember changing anything related to it in my BIOS (and I certainly
didn't note any change in the manual where I've noted other
customisations).  If anything I've only enabled it as ECP/EPP.

The kernel apparently finds nothing attached to irq 7.

Maybe I/we should try just the PnP device config instead:

	lpt* at pnpbios? index ?

I've only once tried to connect this particular machine to a printer (an
Apple LW16/600), and didn't have any success (but I was trying to get it
to go bi-directional and I don't remember what exactly the issue was).
I don't remember ever getting it to print anything though, not even with
"cat file.ps > /dev/lpt2".

I didn't use a known-to-be IEEE-1284-compliant cable as warned by both
the IBM and Apple manuals, and I wasn't willing to try and carry the
printer back behind the rack where the server's installed so that I
could test it with one.  I've not looked closely at the differences, if
any, between such a cable and the traditional PC parallel port cable,
but I wouldn't think an ordinary one would prevent normal on-way
communications from working.

-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoods@acm.org>     <woods@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>;   Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>