[rescue] Parallel ports [was Re: Slightly OT: ?Bad Cap Saga]
mouse at Rodents-Montreal.ORG
Fri Aug 22 10:20:25 CDT 2008
>> Right. At a severe (crippling, I suspect - hm, I should measure
>> this) speed cost: at least two syscalls - user/kernel crossings -
>> per byte, instead of one for the whole string.
> Why can't you use an existing "printer interface"? Or, open /dev/lpt
> and write()-ing 500 bytes at a time? One trap per call.
Because that's output-only, not "the output one byte, input one byte,
repeat" paradigm I'm actually using.
> The challenge I am issuing is to come up with something more general
> purpose (on the "application hardware" side) than a "parallel port"
> and more *portable* and future-safe on the "host" (PC) side.
As for the latter, there is no such thing. Whatever hardware I pick is
vulnerable to being abandoned by computer makers much the way parallel
ports are being.
As for the former, that's Hard; how can you get more general purpose
than a bunch of undedicated signal wires? A lot of applications need
something layered atop it, but that's true of USB (which is neither
universal nor a bus, but that's another rant), of Ethernet, of serial
lines, of everything that's been proposed.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
More information about the rescue