Christion wrote:
<quote>
uncomment the lines (in the routine sane_start)
status = measure_transfer_rate(pss);
CHECK_STATUS (status, me, "measure_transfer_rate");
</quote>
I had a look, and the snapscan source form snapscan.sourceforge already does this.
Sebastion wrote:
<quote>
There are a few lines in snapscan-source.c in the new snapscan which
look like this:
if(ps->pss->pdev->model == ACER300F
||
ps->pss->pdev->model == SNAPSCAN310
||
ps->pss->pdev->model == SNAPSCAN1236S
||
ps->pss->pdev->model == VUEGO310S
||
ps->pss->pdev->model == VUEGO610S)
{
ps->pss->expected_read_bytes = (size_t) ps->absolute_max;
}
Could you try to add your model in the if test (or just put your model
instead of another one). Then recompile. It corrected a problem rather
similar for other models.
If this is not enough, there are a few other places in snapscan code
with the same kind of test. You may try to do the same modification
there too.
</quote>
I found a few ok, added or == PRISA620S. Recompile, no better. Went through all source looking for places where models are used to distinguished between. I added 'and PRISA620S' to snapscan-scsi.c. Recompiled again. No difference really.
Here is the last bit of output (if you need more, let me know) after editing snapscan-source.c, and before I touched snapscan-scsi.c.
<output>
...
[snapscan] usb_read: reading: 0xfb 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
[snapscan] sane_snapscan_read (0x80504c0, 0xbfff764c, 32768, 0xbfff7618)
[snapscan] scsi_read
[snapscan] snapscan_cmd
[snapscan] sanei_usb_cmd(5,0x80504f8,10,0x80505f8,0x8058200 (30480))
[snapscan] atomic_usb_cmd(5,0x80504f8,10,0x80505f8,0x8058200 (30480))
[snapscan] usb_cmd(5,0x80504f8,10,0x80505f8,0x8058200 (30480))
[snapscan] usb_cmd: cmdlen=10, datalen=0
[snapscan] usb_write: writing: 0x28 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x77 0x10 0x0 0
[snapscan] usb_read: reading: 0xf9 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
[snapscan] usb_read Only 26448 bytes read
[snapscan] scsi_read: snapscan_cmd command failed: Error during device I/O
scanimage: sane_read: Error during device I/O
[snapscan] sane_snapscan_close (0x80504c0)
[snapscan] release_unit
[snapscan] snapscan_cmd
[snapscan] sanei_usb_cmd(5,0xbffff594,6,0x0,0x0 (0))
[snapscan] atomic_usb_cmd(5,0xbffff594,6,0x0,0x0 (0))
[snapscan] usb_cmd(5,0xbffff594,6,0x0,0x0 (0))
[snapscan] usb_cmd: cmdlen=6, datalen=0
[snapscan] usb_write: writing: 0x17 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
[snapscan] usb_read: reading: 0xfb 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
[snapscan] close_scanner
[snapscan] usb_close(5)
[snapscan] sane_snapscan_exit
</output>
Went back to original snapscan patched files from sane1.0.1, . It works same as always.
Is there any quality, or speed improvements for the 640U by using the latest snapscan backend with 1.0.4 code? I think I read something about colors being slightly off in the earlier setup.
What I did (patch 1.0.1 source with snapscan-usb patch from here http://hem.fyristorg.com/henrikj/snapscan/. I then edited snapscan.h to recognize a FlatbedScanner13 as SNAPSCAN600. Then copied the source files snapscan* into the sane-backends 1.0.4 and compiled. So I have the newer frontends, but the older backends.
What am I missing by not having the latest backend? (I tried comparing source code, but it is a bit overwhelming seeing as I don't know C (do know fortran, java, limited c++), don't know scanners, or the manufacturers specs, or even what I should be looking for. (I know, I should learn C). The main difference is the addition of the PRISA620S model, which my scanner is recognized as in 1.0.4 instead of a SNAPSCAN600.
ps - I am willing to comply with any requests you have to get 1.0.4 working with this POS scanner.
Thanks guys.
-- ...elbows out, stick on the ice!-- Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/ To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 08 2001 - 11:42:14 PST