I decided to give USB a try, but am not having any luck. I also
encountered some more oddities with the parallel port. Details below.
If any USB gurus can give me any hints, I'd be very grateful; I've
spent a couple hours fiddling and browsing the net, to no avail.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 10:17
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 05:13:05PM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> On Monday 20 September 2004 17:07, Marc Wilson wrote:
>
> > Uh, that's a CUPS back-end, not the hardware directly. The port itself
> > cannot consume CPU. Well, it can, but not in the sense that you mean.
>
> In what way do *you*
On Monday 20 September 2004 10:09 pm, Ross Boylan wrote:
> Mine says
> parport0: Printer, Lexmark International Lexmark Optra E310
> lp0: using parport0 (polling).
> parport0: PC-style at 0x378 [PCSPP]
>
> I don't really know what that means, but it apparently has no
> interrupts and there's no re
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 08:50:36PM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> On Monday 20 September 2004 07:29 pm, Ross Boylan wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure who *you* means, but my original thought was that the
> > device driver associated with the port might be using a lot of CPU
> > cycles.
>
> I think that's
Doh, you are absolutely right, I meant XP.
/icebiker
- Original Message -
From: "Marc Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 18:06
Subject: Re: parallel port using lots of CPU
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 05:42:30PM -0400,
On Monday 20 September 2004 07:29 pm, Ross Boylan wrote:
> I'm not sure who *you* means, but my original thought was that the
> device driver associated with the port might be using a lot of CPU
> cycles.
I think that's exactly what's happening, and I was curious as to why
others thought that it
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 05:13:05PM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> On Monday 20 September 2004 17:07, Marc Wilson wrote:
>
> > Uh, that's a CUPS back-end, not the hardware directly. The port itself
> > cannot consume CPU. Well, it can, but not in the sense that you mean.
>
> In what way do *you*
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 05:13:05PM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> On Monday 20 September 2004 17:07, Marc Wilson wrote:
>
> > Uh, that's a CUPS back-end, not the hardware directly. The port itself
> > cannot consume CPU. Well, it can, but not in the sense that you mean.
>
> In what way do *you*
On Monday 20 September 2004 17:07, Marc Wilson wrote:
> Uh, that's a CUPS back-end, not the hardware directly. The port itself
> cannot consume CPU. Well, it can, but not in the sense that you mean.
In what way do *you* think it can consume CPU?
--
Kirk Strauser
pgpSLMRaidtRT.pgp
Description
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 10:58:52AM -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> Originally I was using lpd in the lpr package. With that, lpd showed
> as the CPU consumer. I just switched to CUPS; now parallel:/dev/lp0
> shows as the CPU consumer. My guess is that it was before, but the
> time was just being att
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 05:42:30PM -0400, Icebiker wrote:
> In NT/XP, MS supports parallel ports grudgingly and encourage you to invest
> in a USB device. I imagine it's the same for Linux.
Just as an aside, NT certainly does nothing of the kind, as it has no clue
what USB is.
--
Marc Wilson |
Parallel ports generate an interrupt (and so a context switch) for every
byte that goes out, the hardware provides no buffering as serial ports do
(and for some reason, the industry never saw the need).
In NT/XP, MS supports parallel ports grudgingly and encourage you to invest
in a USB device.
12 matches
Mail list logo
