[sane-devel] Xerox 3220 USB problem

[ABC]

Alex Eftimie,

Thanks. I'm not usb protocol expert, so as far as I can see
on the first run usbmon output it like this:

 eead2240 1101775494 S Bo:3:003:3 -115 4 = 1ba81200
 eead2240 1101775516 C Bo:3:003:3 0 4 >
 eead2240 1101775554 S Bi:3:003:4 -115 1024 <
 eead2240 1101776007 C Bi:3:003:4 -121 70 = a8004310 5865726f 78202020 5865726f 7820576f 726b4365 6e747265 20333232

"1ba81200" is INQUIRY command to the scanner, and scanner replies valid packet.
On the second run in the same place:

 ec424e40 1120416714 S Bo:3:003:3 -115 4 = 1ba81200
 ec424e40 1120416733 C Bo:3:003:3 0 4 >
 eeef3600 1120416783 S Bi:3:003:4 -115 1024 <
 eeef3600 1121416871 C Bi:3:003:4 -2 0

Driver sends INQUIRY as before, but device reply 0.

In smfp logs I see that communication with 3:005:3 and 3:005:4 endpoints is
exactly the same, and device reply 0 on the second request. But they also have
 communiction with 3:005:2 and 3:005:1 endpoints which reply valid data each time:

 ebbe6480 1337401585 S Bi:3:005:2 -115 1024 <
 ebbe6480 1337401910 C Bi:3:005:2 -2 0
 ee630780 1337403079 S Bi:3:005:2 -115 1024 <
 ee630540 1337403122 S Bo:3:005:1 -115 4 = 1ba81200
 ee630540 1337403153 C Bo:3:005:1 0 4 >
 ee630780 1337403606 C Bi:3:005:2 0 70 = a8004310 5865726f 78202020 5865726f 7820576f 726b4365 6e747265 20333232
 ebbe66c0 1337503267 S Bi:3:005:2 -115 1024 <
 ebbe66c0 1337503358 C Bi:3:005:2 -2 0

 ebe2b480 1337767156 S Bo:3:005:3 -115 4 = 1ba81200
 ebe2b480 1337767178 C Bo:3:005:3 0 4 >
 ebe2b480 1337767213 S Bi:3:005:4 -115 1024 <
 ebe2b480 1337767626 C Bi:3:005:4 -121 70 = a8004310 5865726f 78202020 5865726f 7820576f 726b4365 6e747265 20333232

Second run:

 ef9b6780 1364024034 S Bi:3:005:2 -115 1024 <
 ef9b6780 1364024332 C Bi:3:005:2 -2 0
 f6809480 1364025511 S Bi:3:005:2 -115 1024 <
 f68093c0 1364025549 S Bo:3:005:1 -115 4 = 1ba81200
 f68093c0 1364025593 C Bo:3:005:1 0 4 >
 f6809480 1364026031 C Bi:3:005:2 0 70 = a8004310 5865726f 78202020 5865726f 7820576f 726b4365 6e747265 20333232
 ee572c00 1364125725 S Bi:3:005:2 -115 1024 <
 ee572c00 1364125809 C Bi:3:005:2 -2 0

 efb4e9c0 1364403169 S Bo:3:005:3 -115 4 = 1ba81200
 efb4e9c0 1364403198 C Bo:3:005:3 0 4 >
 efb4e9c0 1364403229 S Bi:3:005:4 -115 1024 <
 efb4e9c0 1365403290 C Bi:3:005:4 -2 0

And then driver work only with 3:005:1/3:005:2 endpoints.
There was also some communication with printer (3:005:0) which I skipped.

It seems like sanei seeing only one device at 3:005:3/3:005:4 (and that target fails),
but smfp sees two, and first one (at 3:005:1/3:005:2) is actually working correctly.

Need help of some usb expert at this point.

-abc


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:33:58PM +0200, Alex Eftimie wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:39 AM, ABC <abc at telekom.ru> wrote:
> > Alex Eftimie,
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 01:56:08PM +0300, Alex Eftimie wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 1:31 PM, ABC <abc at telekom.ru> wrote:
> >> > It maybe be becasue (it is possible) that smfp using different scanning
> >> > mode, like different resolution. (And then doing some image conversion
> >> > internally.) xerox_mfp driver's settings are 'physical' for the device.
> >>
> >> Well, I'm setting the resolution myself, with --resolution=300 (the
> >> same for xerox_mfp and smfp). Also, I'm using as color mode: "Lineart"
> >> for xerox_mfp and "Black and White - Line Art" for smfp. But still 4
> >> seconds vs 10 seconds. Can I get 'physical' with smfp :D?
> >
> > Regarding longer scans via smfp driver, I looked your usbmon logs. Scan
> > parameters seems to be nearly equal. And I see that smfp (1.mon.out)
> > driver send device INQUIRY reqest 4 times with interval from first to last
> > request ~3 seconds. Total time of smfp scan is 8.7 seconds. Total time
> > of xerox_mfp scan is 4.3 seconds. Image data reading time in both cases
> > is nearly 1 second. Time between first image request and image data flow
> > is ~3.5 seconds.  So I conclude that smfp driver spend difference in
> > time internally and actual speed of working with device and device
> > itself is the same.  Why is smfp driver spending time inernally?
> > Unknown. It may be just some hardcoded intervals between commands.
> 
> Sorry for the late reply.
> 
> > It seems your usbmon logs don't contain case when scanimage fail with
> > xerox_mfp driver. As I understand it would fail if `scanimage -L' will
> > be run twice (it will fail second time). So it will be useful to have
> > usbmon log of such case.
> 
> Here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/u4p87ustkef1dw5/12nemzRUYO are the
> usbmon logs for: default (xerox_mfp) and proprietari (smfp) drivers,
> running two consecutive `scanimage -L`.
> 
> 
> Hope this will give you some hints regarding the underlying issue.
> 
> Cheers,
> Alex
> 
> -- 
> sane-devel mailing list: sane-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sane-devel
> Unsubscribe: Send mail with subject "unsubscribe your_password"
>              to sane-devel-request at lists.alioth.debian.org