Henning Meier-Geinitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Henning,
> While you are right that two separate USB device descriptors are > better, I think it's not against the USB spec to have two different > device types in the same USB device implemented as different USB interfaces. Indeed; I missed that point in the mails referenced in the bug report. That's already far better than what used to be done a couple of years ago :) > As far as I know, usblp binds only to the interface of the printer part. Ah, thanks, that was something I wanted to confirm. > Real errors (e.g. scanner interface is claimed by another process) are > detected by the next step, usb_claim_interface(). ISTR that the interface needed to be claimed before doing anything else. As it's been a couple of years since I last played seriously with libusb... :) >> I'm not willing to apply this patch in its current form. It might be >> harmful for other devices. > > I don't think so. The only case I can imagine at the moment is that > for some device the configuration must be changed to 2 for the > scanning to work but for printing only configuration 1 works. In this > case the SANE backend has to call sanei_usb_set_configuration anyway > (which isn't changed by the patch). Also, sanei_usb_set_configuration > is not used by any backend. Good. I had some bad experiments with some devices years ago :) > The patch is from SANE CVS, btw. I know, I planned to take a deeper look at the mailing-list to read the feedback on that. I'll work on that this week-end. Thanks for the input! JB. -- Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Debian, because code matters more Debian & GNU/Linux Developer | <http://www.debian.org> Public key available on <http://www.jblache.org> - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
