[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Loading Modules (was: Soundblaster AWE 64 installation and stuff)



|>                   but when I try to insmod sb I get:
|>
|> Using /lib/modules/2.2.17/misc/sb.o
|> /lib/modules/2.2.17/misc/sb.o: init_module: Device or resource busy
|> Hint: insmod errors can be caused by incorrect module parameters,
|> including invalid IO or IRQ parameters

I'm not sure if my own problem is related, but ..... one of my
frustrations since upgrading to potato has been that I lost PLIP. I
use (used to use) PLIP to connect my laptop to my desktop. All worked
smoothly under slink. But I haven't been able to make it work under
potato (the kernel is 2.2.17; PRINTER_SUPPORT and PLIP are configured
as modules; CONFIG_PARPORT=y CONFIG_PARPORT_PC=y).

If I do:

   % rmmod lp

to unload the printer module, and check that it's removed:

   % cat /proc/devices
     Character devices:
     1 mem
     2 pty
     3 ttyp
     4 ttyS
     5 cua
     7 vcs
     10 misc
     14 sound

     Block devices:
     2 fd
     3 ide0
     8 sd
     65 sd

and then try to load the plip module, I get just this error message:

  % insmod plip
    Using /lib/modules/2.2.17/net/plip.o
    /lib/modules/2.2.17/net/plip.o: init_module: Device or resource busy
    Hint: this error can be caused by incorrect module parameters,
    including invalid IO or IRQ parameters 

I know that I can (in principle) pass IO and IRQ values to some
modules using insmod, but (i) I don't see why insmod should not get
these right under potato as it did under slink (ii) the man-page for
insmod is mysterious about how this should be done (iii) as far as I
can tell, the default values that get used (IRQ 7 for a port on IO
0x378) are right.

I suspect that this must all have to do with the way support for
parallel port devices was re-organized in the 2.2 series kernels, but
knowing that much doesn't let me fix the problem.

If anyone could help, I'd be grateful, and with a bit of luck it might
help with the other poster's soundcard problem as well,

Jim





Reply to: