[sane-devel] 44-10 vs epson 1250

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 18 October 2002 11:55, Henning Meier-Geinitz wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:25:44PM +0200, Till Kamppeter wrote:
>> When I have only an Epson Perfection 1260 connected ("plustek"
>> driver) the "snapscan" backend takes around 15 seconds, with
>> "snapscan" commented out xsnae needs less than 10 seconds to
>> start, with "snapscan" around 25. "mustek-usb" is on the second
>> place with something like two seconds.
>
>The USB detection funtion in sanei_usb isn't very effective.
>For every sanei_usb_attach_matching_devices it checks all the
>/dev/usb/scanner devices, opens them, sends the vendor/product id
>ioctls and closes them. That's done for every scanner in the
> backend. For a scanimage -L, about 1300 files are opened.
>
>However, the real culprit seems to be the USB scanner driver:
>
>Times for scanimage -L on my system with to Mustek USB scanners
>attached:
>
>* without scanner driver (with libusb):            0.437s
>* with the scanner driver from Linux 2.4.20pre10: 19.385s
>
>Now I'm using a patched kernel scanner driver that disables the
>warning messages sent to syslog, fixes the "unable-to-rmmod" bug
> and adds support for devices without bulk-out-endpoints:
>
>* 0.437s
>
>That's not a joke. I don't know which of the changes makes the
>difference, but it works (and the annoying messages in syslog are
>gone). The patch is from Sergey Vlasov and was already submitted
> to the maintainer of the USB scanner module and the
> linux-usb-devel mailinglist. They don't seem to be very
> interested until now, however.
>
>Bye,
>  Henning

See my previous missive re 2.4.20-pre10-ac1.  building -ac2 worked 
just fine so the fixes must have filtered in somehow.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz  512M
99.18% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly