Is the following true? I have a hard time believing that Patrick would turn
off the parallel port in 10's /etc/rc.d/rc.modules file when it was. The
lines noted in the article below are commented out in my 9.1 file... so did
P.V. change the kernel for 10?

-----
From:
http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=...rticle&sid=317

A special case is when you happen to run Slackware 10.0 and have some need to
use the parallel port (especially for printing). If this is so, I advise you
to uncomment the parallel port modules; as far as I can tell, the kernel of
Slackware 10.0 comes with parallel support disabled (Why? I don't know.).
----


ANC

On 2004-07-24, Al C. <no.spam.acanton@adams-blake.no.spam.com> wrote:
> Is the following true? I have a hard time believing that Patrick would turn

It was answered the last time you asked.

nb

notbob wrote:

> On 2004-07-24, Al C. <no.spam.acanton@adams-blake.no.spam.com> wrote:
>> Is the following true? I have a hard time believing that Patrick would turn
>
> It was answered the last time you asked.
>
> nb

There is not a definitive reply in that thread. It sunk into the mire of
insults as so many threads in this NG do. Thus, I ask again. (nb, why don't
you simply killfile me since you really hate me so much. Your post served no
purpose but to hurt and insult.... something you really enjoy doing to me.
Well, my wife is too sick for me to have the time right now to fight you. You
win this one.... but you really ought to just killfile me and I'll announce
ahead of time when/if I 'morph'. Will that work for you?)

Here is my config from 9.1. What is the relationship between the config of the
kernal and the rc.modules file?

al@xxxxxxr:~$ grep -i parport /boot/config
CONFIG_PARPORT=m
CONFIG_PARPORT_PC=m
CONFIG_PARPORT_PC_CML1=m
CONFIG_PARPORT_SERIAL=m
# CONFIG_PARPORT_PC_FIFO is not set
# CONFIG_PARPORT_PC_SUPERIO is not set
CONFIG_PARPORT_PC_PCMCIA=m
# CONFIG_PARPORT_AMIGA is not set
# CONFIG_PARPORT_MFC3 is not set
# CONFIG_PARPORT_ATARI is not set
# CONFIG_PARPORT_GSC is not set
# CONFIG_PARPORT_SUNBPP is not set
# CONFIG_PARPORT_OTHER is not set
CONFIG_PARPORT_1284=y
CONFIG_PARIDE_PARPORT=m
CONFIG_I2C_PARPORT=m
al@xxxx:~$

-ANC

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 09:41:31 -0700, Al C. wrote:

> Here is my config from 9.1. What is the relationship between the config of the
> kernal and the rc.modules file?

The parport driver is built as a module:

> CONFIG_PARPORT=m

Thus, you just remove the # from this line in rc.modules:

# /sbin/modprobe parport_pc

Parallel support isn't removed; it's there with lots of other stuff
(28MB worth in the 2.6.7 modules directory) that doesn't need to be
loaded on every machine by default.

Bryan

Bryan Bibb wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 09:41:31 -0700, Al C. wrote:
>
>> Here is my config from 9.1. What is the relationship between the config of
>> the kernal and the rc.modules file?
>
> The parport driver is built as a module:
>
>> CONFIG_PARPORT=m
>
> Thus, you just remove the # from this line in rc.modules:
>
> # /sbin/modprobe parport_pc
>
> Parallel support isn't removed; it's there with lots of other stuff
> (28MB worth in the 2.6.7 modules directory) that doesn't need to be
> loaded on every machine by default.

I'm still not clear on the concept.

OK, the driver is a module and the kernel is told to "make room" for it,
right? But if line is commented out in rc.modules doesn't that mean that it
does not get loaded?

Or does kmod come into play here and this maybe rc.modules is not used.

What's the deal here?

ANC

> Bryan Bibb wrote:
> I'm still not clear on the concept.
>
> OK, the driver is a module and the kernel is told to "make room" for it,
> right? But if line is commented out in rc.modules doesn't that mean that
> it does not get loaded?
>
> Or does kmod come into play here and this maybe rc.modules is not used.
>
> What's the deal here?
>
> ANC

The deal is that you have to uncomment the line simplpe as that then the
port will work? Not to hard to understand.

Micke

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 10:41:55 -0700, Al C. wrote:
> OK, the driver is a module and the kernel is told to "make room" for it,
> right?

The driver is a bit of code that allows the device to work. This bit
of code can either be "compiled in" (which means that it is living
inside the kernel image in the /boot directoy) or can be loaded *into*
the kernel whenever it is needed. Thus, it is referred to as a
"module." These two are functionally the same; the only difference is
how the code becomes part of the kernel, either once and for all or
every now and then.

The purpose of rc.modules is to make that "every now and then"
whenever the computer boots up. It just runs the command
/sbin/modprobe parport_pc during the boot process. If you watch the
text scroll by you'll see something about the port whenever that
module is being loaded.

You could also just run that command yourself on the command line.
Whether you do it or rc.modules does it for you is irrelevant. The
end result is the same.

I hesitate to mention a third possibility, but for completeness here
it is: a system called 'hotplug' can also load the module for you.
Basically, hotplug pokes around on your computer during boot looking
for hardware to enable. It (might) find your parallel port and then
call /sbin/modprobe parport_pc for you. Thus, the module would be
loaded automatically, no matter whether that command was active or
commented out (with #) in rc.modules. If parport_pc were "compiled
into" the kernel, hotplug would have no need to load the module.

[Don't be confused by the name hotplug. Your parallel port isn't "hot
pluggable" since you can't connect and disconnect it from your
computer while it is running. hotplug (the program, not the concept)
will handle "hotpluggable" devices like removeable usb sticks, but
will also handle devices that are present at boot time (such as sound
cards).]

I'm actually not sure about this, since I'm running hotplug and my
parport_pc module isn't loaded at boot. I don't know enough about
hotplug to speak authoritatively about it. All I know is that with
udev it creates all the right conditions for my usb card reader to
work without my intervention.

Hi:

Many home/office networks have a central printer (printer pool) where all
the printing is done - many printers are even shipped with a ethernet port.

What this means is that many workstations do not require the hardware and
kernel support of a printer port.

Further, most motherboards have the option of disabling unneeded hardware
options like serial and printer ports freeing up DMA channels and IRQs -
having the kernel probing for a printer port will produce error messages.

If you need the printer port with the stock kernel, just load the module.

You can automate the process by uncommenting the 'parallel port printer
support' option in rc.modules.

Best regards,

Brian

On 2004-07-24, Al C. <no.spam.acanton@adams-blake.no.spam.com> wrote:

> There is not a definitive reply in that thread.

Sure there was, Mr. "I'm pretty good with Linux and with Slack."

Mike said:

"My parallell port support works in 10.0 just as well as in 9.1.
Maybe it's compiled in to the kernel : )" (clue 1)

......and then Gary pointed to the config.ide file (clue 2), which you've
obviously read. Now if a dumbass like myself can put clue and clue
together, a self proclaimed expert-at-pretty-much-everything like yoursef
should have no trouble at all.

> (nb, why don't
> you simply killfile me...

Someone has to stay behind and keep all that hot air from blowing aols away.

Besides, you're so much fun. You come in here swaggering and blustering,
baiting the regulars. Then, in the same breath, you whine about dem mean
ol' gurus and how everyone is picking on you, all the while playing the
innocent. It's hilarious. You're more entertaining than videos. Cheaper,
too.

> Your post served no
> purpose but to hurt and insult....

Oh, I see. It's ok for you to ask the same question twice, but I'm being
insulting for referring you back to the same answer. What's wrong? Don't
you believe Mike when he said the parallel port works in 10? Do you think
he's lying to you? Or is it that you just don't like the answers some
people have offered and you're going to keep asking the question, no matter
how annoying, till you get the answer YOU want? Again with the support on
your terms, eh Al? Or are you just "spoiling for a fight"? Sounds like it.
You been baiting me all week.

Well, here I am, Al, and I'm feeling frisky.

> Here is my config from 9.1. What is the relationship between the config of the
> kernal and the rc.modules file?

Now that I've had my fun "beating up" on you, here's some info that might
help.

http://www.openskills.info/view/boxd...boxtype=distro

nb

notbob wrote:

> Oh, I see. It's ok for you to ask the same question twice, but I'm being
> insulting for referring you back to the same answer. What's wrong? Don't
> you believe Mike when he said the parallel port works in 10? Do you think
> he's lying to you? Or is it that you just don't like the answers some
> people have offered and you're going to keep asking the question, no matter
> how annoying, till you get the answer YOU want? Again with the support on
> your terms, eh Al? Or are you just "spoiling for a fight"?

No. You win this one.

Normally, I'd kick the crap out of you, but don't have the time or energy for
it now. So I raise the white flag, throw in the towel and walk away. You're
the better man today. After six weeks of 24/7 care-giving to a semi-crippled
spouse I just don't have it me to take you on. So today is your day... enjoy
it. You got the better of me.

Monday is our 23rd wedding anniversary. I've watched her change from a young
girl to a withered old woman from this disease. Sadness and anger....
followed by more sadness and anger.

You'll get your fight, nb.

Oh yes you will.

But not today.

You win this one.

ANC