Greg,
> > > > This is a patch against the ftdi_sio 1.3.0 driver + interim patch.
> > > > The new driver should be out soon...
> > >
> > > Can you post it not compressed so we can read it?
> >
> > Sure. I compressed it to save bandwith...
>
> Hm, seems to have dropped all tabs, can you try sending
> Hm, seems to have dropped all tabs, can you try sending it again so that
> it could be applied properly?
Hmm, just save the compressed version to disk :-)
> One small comment on the code:
> > +typedef struct {
> > + unsigned char enable;
> > + unsigned char bitmask; /* description of bitmask: s
On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 09:58:52AM +0100, Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 10:04:14PM +0100, Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> > > This is a patch against the ftdi_sio 1.3.0 driver + interim patch.
> > > The new driver should be out soon...
> >
> > Can you post it not compressed so we can r
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 10:04:14PM +0100, Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> > This is a patch against the ftdi_sio 1.3.0 driver + interim patch.
> > The new driver should be out soon...
>
> Can you post it not compressed so we can read it?
Sure. I compressed it to save bandwith...
Thomas
diff -u -r -b d
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 10:04:14PM +0100, Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> This is a patch against the ftdi_sio 1.3.0 driver + interim patch.
> The new driver should be out soon...
Can you post it not compressed so we can read it?
thanks,
greg k-h
---
> > Ahh, now I see :-) Thanks.
> > I didn't know about those special thunking handlers
> > needed for 64 bit systems.
> >
> > Is it sufficient to list the new ioctls
> > in the ioctl32_handler_table/ioctl_translations table?
>
> Depending on the data provided, you might have to write a function too
> > But why is it working anyway even though I haven't modified
> > any arch//kernel/ioctl32.c handler,
> > just the ftdi_sio ioctl() handler?
>
> Are you using a ppc64 or sparc64 or ia64 or x86-64 machine with a 64 bit
> kernel? If not, then yes, it works just fine on 32 bit kernels.
Ahh,
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:55:14PM +0100, Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> > > > No, those macros don't do it. If you have a strong stomach, look at:
> > > > arch/sparc64/kernel/ioctl32.c
> > > > for just one of the arch specific files that you will have to modify.
> > > > Make sure you get them all, or yo
> > > No, those macros don't do it. If you have a strong stomach, look at:
> > > arch/sparc64/kernel/ioctl32.c
> > > for just one of the arch specific files that you will have to modify.
> > > Make sure you get them all, or you will have some angry maintainers to
> > > deal with...
> >
> > But th
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:36:31AM +0100, Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> > > > Also, you'll need to make the necessary
> > > > 64 bit thunking layer if somehow you convince me :)
> > >
> > > I thought using the _IO macros should do it
> > > or did I miss something?
> >
> > No, those macros don't do it.
> > > > I found Documentation/ioctl-numbers.txt for new-style ioctls.
> > > > Currently I'm using 'N' with a range of 20 to 3F.
> > > > Before a final release, I'll check if they're still unused.
> > >
> > > Heh, good luck, I don't think I'll take a patch adding new ioctls
> > > without a _very_ g
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 10:45:46AM +0100, Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> > > I found Documentation/ioctl-numbers.txt for new-style ioctls.
> > > Currently I'm using 'N' with a range of 20 to 3F.
> > > Before a final release, I'll check if they're still unused.
> >
> > Heh, good luck, I don't think I'll t
> > I found Documentation/ioctl-numbers.txt for new-style ioctls.
> > Currently I'm using 'N' with a range of 20 to 3F.
> > Before a final release, I'll check if they're still unused.
>
> Heh, good luck, I don't think I'll take a patch adding new ioctls
> without a _very_ good reason.
What about
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 09:35:01AM +0100, Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> I found Documentation/ioctl-numbers.txt for new-style ioctls.
> Currently I'm using 'N' with a range of 20 to 3F.
> Before a final release, I'll check if they're still unused.
Heh, good luck, I don't think I'll take a patch adding n
> I've tried to document the "common" ones in a linux journal article a
> few months ago. But for the others, you'll just have to dig through the
> code, both kernel, and userspace programs.
I found Documentation/ioctl-numbers.txt for new-style ioctls.
Currently I'm using 'N' with a range of 20 t
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 09:37:30AM +0100, Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> > > I want to implement a special ioctl (enable "bit bang" mode)
> > > for the ftdi_sio usb-serial driver.
> >
> > Are you sure there's nothing in the 60+ different tty ioctls in the
> > kernel that would work for you?
>
> My prob
> My problem is: What do all these short names mean?
> Is there somewhere a table describing their function?
> And how do I know which ioctl could be already
> in use by a higher layer of the usb system?
>
> I was just curious if there's some kind of custom_ioctl_base ;-)
Ok, seems like none of t
> > I want to implement a special ioctl (enable "bit bang" mode)
> > for the ftdi_sio usb-serial driver.
>
> Are you sure there's nothing in the 60+ different tty ioctls in the
> kernel that would work for you?
My problem is: What do all these short names mean?
Is there somewhere a table describ
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:59:20PM +0100, Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I want to implement a special ioctl (enable "bit bang" mode)
> for the ftdi_sio usb-serial driver.
Are you sure there's nothing in the 60+ different tty ioctls in the
kernel that would work for you? And why do you want to
Hi!
I want to implement a special ioctl (enable "bit bang" mode)
for the ftdi_sio usb-serial driver.
My question: What value (name) should I use for the ioctl?
Is there a TIOCCUSTOM_BASE value where I just can add +1/+2/+3?
I've looked at include/asm-i386/ioctls.h but I couldn't
spot anything re
20 matches
Mail list logo
