On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Martin van Es wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Martin van Es wrote:
> >
> > Maybe that's the explanation: The scanner isn't able to cope when the
> > packets arrive too rapidly. It _is_ clear from the usbmon data that
> > the
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Martin van Es wrote:
>
> Maybe that's the explanation: The scanner isn't able to cope when the
> packets arrive too rapidly. It _is_ clear from the usbmon data that
> the scanner is at least slightly buggy.
So the scanner mi
On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Martin van Es wrote:
> Here's the usbmon output on my old USB2 laptop, kernel 3.9.1
> Including the plug/unplug events. scanimage -L succesfully reports the
> scanner and returns the prompt.
The two usbmon traces are essentially identical (including the -71
errors!) right up t
Here's the usbmon output on my old USB2 laptop, kernel 3.9.1
Including the plug/unplug events. scanimage -L succesfully reports the
scanner and returns the prompt.
M.
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Martin van Es wrote:
>
>> Here's the usbmon log on bus 0
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Martin van Es wrote:
> Here's the usbmon log on bus 01
>
> worflow:
> 1. cat /sys/kernel/debug/usb/usbmon/1u > 1u.mon.out
> 2. plug scanner
> 3. scanimage -L
> 4. unplug scanner
> 5. stop cat
The problems start here:
88023423db40 1844894429 S Bo:1:004:3 -115 4 = 01070001
Here's the usbmon log on bus 01
worflow:
1. cat /sys/kernel/debug/usb/usbmon/1u > 1u.mon.out
2. plug scanner
3. scanimage -L
4. unplug scanner
5. stop cat
Regards,
Martin
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 10:45:27AM +0200, Martin van Es wrote:
>> On Mon, J
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 10:45:27AM +0200, Martin van Es wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 09:35:59PM +0200, Martin van Es wrote:
> >> 3.9.8 brought a tiny improvement!
> >>
> >> scanimage -L now succesfully reports the scanner, but then hangs.
> >
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 09:35:59PM +0200, Martin van Es wrote:
>> 3.9.8 brought a tiny improvement!
>>
>> scanimage -L now succesfully reports the scanner, but then hangs.
>> I still can not scan with xsane however (no scanner device found)
>>
>> $
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 09:35:59PM +0200, Martin van Es wrote:
> 3.9.8 brought a tiny improvement!
>
> scanimage -L now succesfully reports the scanner, but then hangs.
> I still can not scan with xsane however (no scanner device found)
>
> $ scanimage -L
> device `plustek:libusb:001:004' is a Ca
3.9.8 brought a tiny improvement!
scanimage -L now succesfully reports the scanner, but then hangs.
I still can not scan with xsane however (no scanner device found)
$ scanimage -L
device `plustek:libusb:001:004' is a Canon CanoScan N670U/N676U/LiDE20
flatbed scanner
(hang, but eventually returns
Is noone interested in taking this up with me?
Martin
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Martin van Es wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have exactly the same problem as described by Harald Judt in this mail:
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg58841.html
>
> The thread ends here, in mid conversation wit
11 matches
Mail list logo