Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
Selon Antoine Jacoutot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Here is a diff to update sane-backends to version 1.0.17.
So... any feedback on this ?
Thanks !
Antoine
I just moved a CanoScan LIDE 20 over my notebook to try it. First the
obvious:
it is correctly *not* getting taken over by "uscanner", so it should be
available to SANE,
as the documentation states:
ian:21$ dmesg | grep ugen
ugen0 at uhub0 port 1
ugen0: Canon CanoScan, rev 1.10/1.00, addr 2
ian:22$
sane-find-scanner finds it:
found USB scanner (vendor=0x04a9 [Canon], product=0x220d [CanoScan],
chip=LM9832/3) at libusb:/dev/usb0:/dev/ugen0
I found that the plustek, not canon, backend has to be used, so I set this:
ian:16$ echo $SANE_DEFAULT_DEVICE
plustek:/dev/ugen0
ian:17$
ian:23$ scanimage -L
No scanners were identified...
ian:14$ scanimage >/tmp/id
scanimage: open of device plustek:/dev/ugen0 failed: Error during device I/O
ian:15$
(With sudo scanimage it takes longer but gives the same message).
I believe this is the relevant part of the ktrace output:
15848 scanimage CALL open(0xcfbf5ea0,0,0)
15848 scanimage NAMI "/dev/ugen0.00"
15848 scanimage RET open 7
15848 scanimage CALL fcntl(0x7,0x3,0)
15848 scanimage RET fcntl 0
15848 scanimage CALL fcntl(0x7,0x4,0x4)
15848 scanimage RET fcntl -1 errno 22 Invalid argument
15848 scanimage CALL ioctl(0x7,_IOR('U',0x69,0x12),0x7d09dc10)
15848 scanimage RET ioctl 0
15848 scanimage CALL fstat(0x7,0xcfbf5dc0)
15848 scanimage RET fstat 0
15848 scanimage CALL fcntl(0x7,0x3,0)
15848 scanimage RET fcntl 0
15848 scanimage CALL fcntl(0x7,0x4,0)
15848 scanimage RET fcntl -1 errno 22 Invalid argument
15848 scanimage CALL close(0x7)
15848 scanimage RET close 0
Any leads?
