EPP mode not recognized

[wwjd]

Having switched on EPP mode (in BIOS) for the parallel port should result in an
entry in /proc/sys/dev/parport/parport0/modes.
This does not happen in Ubuntu Linux 4.10

A (parallel port) scanner like UMAX Astra 1220p does need that entry.
More infos on this particular scanner and the EPP problem in general:
   http://umax1220p.sourceforge.net
   http://umax1220p.sourceforge.net/trouble.html

You can check this with dmesg | grep parport0

There will be a line similar to
   parport0: PC-style at 0x378, irq 7 [PCSPP,TRISTATE]

It should be something like
   parport0: PC-style at 0x378, irq 7 [PCSPP,TRISTATE,EPP]

[Matt Zimmerman (mdz)]

Are you certain that it is correctly enabled in the BIOS? Please verify, and
also attach the output of the following commands:

- dmesg
- modprobe -c

it works fine for me here:
parport0: PC-style at 0x378 (0x778), irq 7, using FIFO [PCSPP,TRISTATE,COMPAT,ECP]

[wwjd (wwjd)]

Created an attachment (id=980)
dmesg

[wwjd (wwjd)]

Created an attachment (id=981)
modprobe -c

[wwjd (wwjd)]

Yes, I'm pretty sure that it is correctly enabled since everything works fine in
Fedora Core 2 on the same system.

Following the request I attached two files.

[Matt Zimmerman (mdz)]

What kernel are you running under Fedora?

[wwjd (wwjd)]

(In reply to comment #5)
> What kernel are you running under Fedora?

It's 2.6.7-1.437

[Matt Zimmerman (mdz)]

Is it possible for you to try the 2.6.10 kernel in Hoary and see if it fixes
your problem?

[wwjd (wwjd)]

Great! It does work with the 2.6.10 kernel.

Thanks, Matt, for your assistance.

This was my first bug report ever, please tell me if I could have done/report
something in a better way. Or if this even should not have been reported as a
bug. (Although I tried nearly everything (forums, irc etc) before.)

Thanks a lot to all the ubuntu developers! I'm impressed by your work.

[Matt Zimmerman (mdz)]

(In reply to comment #8)
> Great! It does work with the 2.6.10 kernel.

Glad to hear it. This _might_ be a duplicate of bug #8557, but since I'm not
certain, I'll just mark it fixed.

> This was my first bug report ever, please tell me if I could have done/report
> something in a better way. Or if this even should not have been reported as a
> bug. (Although I tried nearly everything (forums, irc etc) before.)

The more information you can provide at the start, the faster the process will
go. For example, if you had said at the beginning that it worked OK under a
2.6.7 on Fedora, that would have saved us some time.
Otherwise, you did fine, thanks.