[sane-devel] Mustek BP 1200 CU PLUS / Bug
Lorenzo Delana
Lorenzo.Delana at tiscali.it
Fri Feb 17 20:10:39 UTC 2006
On Thursday 26 January 2006 21:34, Lorenzo Delana wrote:
> At 16:59, 22 jan 2006, Henning Meier-Geinitz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2006-01-18 00:08, Lorenzo Delana wrote:
> > > I have a Mustek BP 1200 CU PLUS scanner A4, that /proc/bus/usb/devices
> > > describe as:
> >
> > I have the same scanner and it works flawlessly. Also many others use
> > this scanner.
> >
> > > 1) I installed cvs version of sane-backend and when I use scanimage the
> > > problem go in Segmentation Fault;
> > > to solve this I have to add a NULL POINTER check on the line 461 of the
> > > code so that:
> >
> > I assume this is in sanei/sanei_usb.c?
>
> right
>
> > > -------------
> > > case USB_CLASS_PER_INTERFACE:
> > > if (dev->config[0].interface[interface].altsetting)
> > > switch (dev->config[0].interface[interface].altsetting[0].
> > > bInterfaceClass)
> > > {
> > > ----------------
> > > This because altsetting something got me a NULL, then altsetting[0] is
> > > dereferencing a null pointer.
> >
> > How can altsetting[0] be 0? This means that an interface exists but no
> > altsetting. I'm not that used to the USB spec but I would be surprised
> > if this is allowed. Anyway, if your scanner does this, it can't scan
> > because it's broken. I rather assume that it happens with some other
> > device connected to your USB. Could you try to find out which device
> > behaves this way? And please send a log with USB debugging enabled:
> > SANE_DEBUG_SANEI_USB=255 scanimage -L
>
> I'm sorry but I'm not able to reproduce this behavior.
>
> Now that I'm completed the installation of my linux os from scratch maybe
> that something that lacks before in the system now is present ( I think
> something about devices udevd etc.. ) not generate more the error :(
>
Now the problem of SEGMENTATION FAULT goes, so this is the log:
/usr/src/i/sane-backends# SANE_DEBUG_SANEI_USB=255 scanimage -L
[sanei_debug] Setting debug level of sanei_usb to 255.
[sanei_usb] sanei_usb_init: Looking for kernel scanner devices
[sanei_usb] sanei_usb_init: Looking for libusb devices
usb_set_debug: Setting debugging level to 255 (on)
usb_os_find_busses: Found 002
usb_os_find_busses: Found 001
usb_os_find_busses: Skipping non bus directory devices
usb_os_find_devices: Found 002 on 002
usb_os_find_devices: Found 001 on 002
error obtaining child information: Inappropriate ioctl for device
usb_os_find_devices: Found 007 on 001
usb_os_find_devices: Found 005 on 001
usb_os_find_devices: Found 004 on 001
usb_os_find_devices: Found 002 on 001
invalid descriptor length of 114
Unable to parse descriptors
usb_os_find_devices: Found 001 on 001
error obtaining child information: Inappropriate ioctl for device
error obtaining child information: Inappropriate ioctl for device
error obtaining child information: Invalid argument
[sanei_usb] sanei_usb_init: device 0x04a9/0x1091, interface 0 doesn't look
like a scanner (0/7)
[sanei_usb] sanei_usb_init: device 0x04a9/0x1091: no suitable interfaces
[sanei_usb] sanei_usb_init: device 0x0000/0x0000 looks like a root hub
[sanei_usb] sanei_usb_init: found libusb device (0x055f/0x021c) interface 0
at libusb:001:007
[sanei_usb] sanei_usb_init: found libusb device (0x2040/0x9301) interface 0
at libusb:001:005
[sanei_usb] sanei_usb_init: device 0x05e3/0x0605, interface 0 doesn't look
like a scanner (9/9)
[sanei_usb] sanei_usb_init: device 0x05e3/0x0605: no suitable interfaces
Segmentation fault
AFTER PATCHING:
/usr/src/sane-backends# sane-find-scanner
# sane-find-scanner will now attempt to detect your scanner. If the
# result is different from what you expected, first make sure your
# scanner is powered up and properly connected to your computer.
# No SCSI scanners found. If you expected something different, make sure
that
# you have loaded a kernel SCSI driver for your SCSI adapter.
found USB scanner (vendor=0x055f, product=0x021c [USB Scanner], chip=GT-6816)
at libusb:001:007
found USB scanner (vendor=0x2040 [Hauppaug], product=0x9301 [SOHO-FX2]) at
libusb:001:005
# Your USB scanner was (probably) detected. It may or may not be supported
by
# SANE. Try scanimage -L and read the backend's manpage.
# Not checking for parallel port scanners.
# Most Scanners connected to the parallel port or other proprietary ports
# can't be detected by this program.
AND THE SCANNER WORKS...
Available to make more debug log hope help in make wonderful sane more stable
than already it is in major cases.
lore
> > As an alernative to a strangely acting device, there could be a
> > problem with libusb. However, this is the first time I hear about such
> > trouble.
> >
> > I'll add some checks for altsetting !=0 to sanei_usb as they don't
> > harm. But I think the problem is somewhere else.
>
> Is a good idea, maybe some other user in future can occur in my same
> problem and can read a line like
> "altsetting bug: this should not happen, please send email to mailing-list
> with `SANE_DEBUG_SANEI_USB=255 scanimage -L' output result" :-)
>
> > > 3) as for 1) in tools/sane-find-scanner.c at line 627
> >
> > Could you send the output of "sane-find-scanner -v -v", please?
> >
> > > 4) at backend/gt68xx_high.c
> > > I have commented out the check for the status, because in this point
> > > the program blocks forever ( for my scanner ). changing status =
> > > SANE_STATUS_GOOD for quickly replacement.
> >
> > Which status exactly? Which line of the code? Please send a log file
> > of a scan where it blocks (without your change).
>
> --- p/sane-backends/backend/gt68xx_high.c 2006-01-02
> 17:59:02.000000000 +0100
> +++ gt68xx_high.c 2006-01-25 21:54:17.000000000 +0100
> @@ -669,11 +669,14 @@
>
> if (scanner->auto_afe)
> {
> - if (scanner->dev->model->is_cis)
> - status = gt68xx_afe_cis_auto (scanner);
> - else
> - status = gt68xx_afe_ccd_auto (scanner, request);
> + /*
> + if (scanner->dev->model->is_cis)
> + status = gt68xx_afe_cis_auto (scanner);
> + else
> + status = gt68xx_afe_ccd_auto (scanner, request);
> + */
>
> + status = SANE_STATUS_GOOD;
> if (status != SANE_STATUS_GOOD)
> {
> DBG (5, "gt68xx_scanner_calibrate: gt68xx_afe_*_auto failed:
> %s\n",
>
> I tried to break with the debugger at `gt68xx_scanner_calibrate' before
> calling `gt68_afe_cis_auto` and the result for struct request is:
>
> (gdb) print *request
> $8 = {x0 = 0, y0 = 0, xs = 14221312, ys = 19595264, xdpi = 300, ydpi = 300,
> depth = 8, color = 0,
> mbs = -4172048, mds = 32767, mas = -1431604571, lamp = 1, calculate = 0,
> use_ta = 0, backtrack = 1,
> backtrack_lines = 16}
>
> and the result for *scanner is in the attached `log3'.
>
> NOTE: my platform is an AMD 64bit X2 with 64bit linux kernel and mixed
> 32/64 bit multilib and the OS installed is from scratch
> (www.linuxfromscratch.org). My kernel 2.6.14.5
> Linux alpha 2.6.14.5 #12 SMP Thu Jan 19 CET 2006 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64
> GNU/Linux
> My compiler is gnu gcc 4.0.2
>
> my scanimage dependancies:
> ldd `which scanimage`
> libsane.so.1 => /opt/lib/libsane.so.1 (0x00002aaaaabc7000)
> libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x00002aaaaaccd000)
> libusb-0.1.so.4 => /opt/lib/libusb-0.1.so.4 (0x00002aaaaadd1000)
> libpthread.so.0 => /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (0x00002aaaaaeda000)
> libm.so.6 => /lib64/libm.so.6 (0x00002aaaaafef000)
> libjpeg.so.62 => /opt/lib/libjpeg.so.62 (0x00002aaaab174000)
> libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00002aaaab2a2000)
> /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00002aaaaaaab000)
>
> Now I found the thing: the problem is that calibrate process takes long
> time for me depending if I have the cover of the scanner opened or closed,
> but in any case takes very long time before start and I thinked that's
> forever loop for the program but thisn't.
>
> In fact if I have the cover opened before scanimage start it takes 53
> seconds
>
> real 0m53.263s
> user 0m0.024s
> sys 0m0.028s
> attached log file : calib_log2
>
> If the cover is closed the scanimage takes 11 seconds to start
>
> real 0m11.465s
> user 0m0.008s
> sys 0m0.012s
> attached log file : calib_log1
>
> in any case for the 4) the scanner works, the only problem is the slow
> startup caused by the calibration process.
>
> It's normal this long calibration time ?
>
> > Bye,
> > Henning
>
> thnx
> lorenzo
More information about the sane-devel
mailing list