> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 08:21:32AM -0400, DeeCeeOne wrote:
> > Yes indeed, should we go with generic lm983x (meaning whole line
starting
> > >from lm9830) or just the easy way and do only lm9831-lm9833?
>
> I think lm9831-33 is enough as the lm9830 is parport, not USB. I
> didn't even know that there is a lm9833.
After looking at hp4200 backend and lm9830 data sheet I find it rather
cumbersome
support for the whole family(there is some differences in register mapping
between lm9830 and the rest of the bunch). lm9831-lm9833 is a piece of cake
since there are almost no differences aside from 48bit capabilities of
lm9833. Though we'll need a smart way of detecting lm9833 since the standard
way (register 0x69 (Version Number) has defined the same values for lm9832
and lm9833). The differences between 31,32, and 33 are minimal and porting
hp4200 backend (dropping the parallel interface, and ironing out the
differences in register mapping would be the simplest way to get a working
backend in shortest time)
In the next few days I'll focus on:
- getting as much info on the scanners using those chips ( all sorts of data
eg. optical resolution, .ini files ,snoopy logs, CIS/CCD, etc.)
- adapting hp4200 backend to work for lm983[1-3]
- detecting lm983x (I got a routine for that, except lm9833 needs to be
added(though I got an idea on how to tell the difference between 32 and 33))
- detecting the size of DRAM
- coarse calibration
- fine calibration
> I think after we find out about the existing code we should start writing
some
> kind of mechanism to set the basic values of the chip depending on the
> scanner type.
May I propose an easy approach?
How does taking those basic values from .ini settings from windoze drivers
sound?
should I start a project on sourceforge?
Best regards,
Adam
-- 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 : Mon Apr 09 2001 - 14:18:20 PDT