[sane-devel] saned does not work with 2.6.23-rc9
adeuring at gmx.net
Wed Oct 3 15:53:04 UTC 2007
On 03.10.2007 17:26, Joerg Platte wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 3. Oktober 2007 schrieb abel deuring:
>>> # 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.
>>> [sanei_debug] Setting debug level of sanei_scsi to 255.
>> did not give me any clue, but you already found the cause of the problem
>> :) And since the host adapter driver did not see any devices, we can't
>> expect to get useful output.
> But at tis point Linux found the scanner and created the device node and an
> entry in /proc/scsi/scsi and the scanner is turned on and connected. With
> previous kernels this was sufficient to actually use the scanner.
OK, I misunderstood you.
>> Yes, if the scanner is not known to its host adapter driver, no
>> application will find it :) But it is nevertheless very weird that
>> _some_ SCSI related IOCTLs worked, but SG_GET_SCSI_ID failed, probably
>> for a "stale" device file.
> I don't think it is stale, looks more like it is not fully initialized. But
> maybe the SCSI implementation of the scanner is buggy and recent kernels
> trigger a bug. The scanner is a Mustek ScanExpress 120000SP and I don't think
> it is 100% SCSI compatible...
Well, this scanner might have some compatibility issues, but the
SG_GET_SCSI_ID ioctl asks basically for the same data as you can see in
/proc/scsi/scsi. Hence this ioctl should work, if the scanner is listed
in /proc/scsi/scsi. Looks more like a new bug in the SCSI system of the
> Hope, this bug will be fixed soon... I usually turn my scanner on when I need
> it and not during system boot.
As Allan already wrote, it might help to rmmod and modprobe the
sym53c8xx driver. Only a workaround, but after all, SCSI devices are not
detected automatically, so you need to invoke one or the other helper
program anyway, if your scanner is not powered on at boot time (which is
absolutely reasonable :).
> Thank you for your help!
More information about the sane-devel