Stef, I made some changes. In looking on Google I see that RedHat 9 doesn't activate ECP as a default. I recompiled the parport module section and now I'm getting ECP! Cool. Now the data is:
run export .... run scanimage -L 2>log ------------------------------------------------------------- [sanei_debug] Setting debug level of umax_pp_low to 1. [umax_pp_low] SANE_INB level 3 [umax_pp_low] sanei_umax_pp_InitPort(0x378,) [umax_pp_low] sanei_ioperm(0x378, 8, 1) OK ... [umax_pp_low] status 128 doesn't match! umax_pp_low.c:4927 [umax_pp_low] No scanner detected by 'ringScanner(2,0)'... [umax_pp_low] status 128 doesn't match! umax_pp_low.c:4927 [umax_pp_low] No scanner detected by 'ringScanner(5,0)'... [umax_pp_low] status 128 doesn't match! umax_pp_low.c:4927 [umax_pp_low] No scanner detected by 'ringScanner(5,10000)'... [umax_pp_low] status 128 doesn't match! umax_pp_low.c:4927 [umax_pp_low] No scanner detected by 'ringScanner(5,10000)'... [umax_pp_low] No 1220P/2000P scanner detected by 'ringScanner()'... [umax_pp_low] Trying 610p (umax_pp_low.c:7346) [umax_pp_low] connect610p control=0F, expected 0x0E (umax_pp_low.c:3860) [umax_pp_low] connect610p control=0F, expected 0x0C (umax_pp_low.c:3870) [umax_pp_low] connect610p control=0F, expected 0x0E (umax_pp_low.c:3880) [umax_pp_low] connect610p control=0F, expected 0x0C (umax_pp_low.c:3890) [umax_pp_low] connect610p control=07, expected 0x04 (umax_pp_low.c:3899) [umax_pp_low] sync610p failed (got 0x80 expected 0x38)! (umax_pp_low.c:3683) [umax_pp_low] sync610p failed! Scanner not present or powered off ... (umax_pp_low.c:6232) [umax_pp_low] initTransport610p() failed (umax_pp_low.c:6536) run ./ppdiag ---------------------------------------------------------------- [root@Eddie tools]# ./ppdiag S01: parport built as module S02: parport0: S02: modes:PCSPP,TRISTATE,COMPAT,ECP S02: ADDR :0x378 S02: IRQ :7 S02: DMA :no DMA used S03: parport parameters are: options parport_pc io=0x378 io_hi=0x778 irq=7 dma=none S10: ppdev built as module S12: /dev/parport0 exists ... S12: /dev/parport0 is readable ... S12: /dev/parport0 is writable ... successfull end .... The contents of umax_pp.conf are: ------------------------------------------- option buffer 8388608 port 0x378 option astra 2000 The /etc/modules.conf includes: ------------------------------------------- alias parport_lowlevel parport_pc options parport_pc io=0x378 io_hi=0x778 irq=7 dma=none When I run lsmod, I get the following relevant items: ------------------------------------------------------ ppdev 6796 0 (unused) parport_pc 31848 1 (autoclean) lp 8996 0 (autoclean) parport 37056 1 (autoclean) [ppdev parport_pc lp] The BIOS is set to ECP, IRQ=7, Addr=0x378, DMA=3 I reset (pc off, scanner off, scanner on, pc on) the scanner before these runs of the tests. The scanner is on, despite the messages when I ran these. OK, so now I've got ECP; what's next? ... thanks for all your help! Joe Henley Joe Henley wrote: > Hi Stef, > > Sorry for the delay in responding. I was out of town on business. > > svo...@wanadoo.fr wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I think you should try again ECP. I think the message you get is >> harmless. You can comment it out in the sourcecode before doing tests >> again. > > > I'm not sure I understand which message you're referring to. With the > BIOS set for ECP, it (scanimage -L 2>log) just runs on without stopping. > I have to use ^C to stop it. Is that the message you refer to? > > The BIOS says it's ECP, but Linux doesn't report it that way in the > /var/log/messages or kernel files. Very odd! Even more odd is that I > run Win4Lin on this machine, using Win98. I can run Linux running > Win4Lin, running Win98, running the VistaScan copier program, and it > runs just fine. The speed is very good. So somehow it's figuring out > to run quickly thru the parallel port. If I shut down > VistaScan/Win98/Win4Lin and without rebooting, load up sane and try it, > it's very slow. Arrrgh! > > Any suggestions? > >> But until you see ECP mode detected by ythe linux kernel, I'm >> afraid you'll have troubles. >> >> Regards, >> Stef >> > Thanks! > > Joe Henley >
