From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 20 06:58:36 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6483D16A4CE for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 06:58:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv1.cosmo-project.de (srv1.cosmo-project.de [213.83.6.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A66AE43D39 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 06:58:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely5.cicely.de (cicely5.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301:200:92ff:fe9b:20e7]) (authenticated bits=0) i3KDwQPo064097 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:58:29 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (cicely12.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301::12]) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3KDvOhn036652 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:57:25 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i3KDvOcn005014; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:57:24 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i3KDvO07005013; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:57:24 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:57:23 +0200 From: Bernd Walter To: Mattias Schlenker Message-ID: <20040420135723.GH5279@cicely12.cicely.de> References: <408524AC.7040506@schlenker-webdesign.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <408524AC.7040506@schlenker-webdesign.de> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely12.cicely.de 5.2-CURRENT alpha User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.63 X-Spam-Report: * -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on cicely12.cicely.de cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: device uscanner in GENERIC? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: ticso@cicely.de List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:58:36 -0000 On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 03:25:00PM +0200, Mattias Schlenker wrote: > Does it make sense to keep the entry > > device uscanner > > in the GENERIC configuration file? Most people nowadays use scanners via > libusb which is also the default behavior if installing sane -backends > (it depends on libusb) from the ports. In FreeBSD 4.x usually having > "device uscanner" in your kernel configuration meant that the scanner > was available both via uscanner and ugen. However in 5.x "device > uscanner" blocks the scanner from being recognized. ugen is no option for multi interface devices, e.g. scanner/printer combo. ugen is a device level driver and once you have an interface level driver like ulpt attached you can only share the device with other interface level drivers. Well uscanner currently is a device level driver as well, but that's more a bug and is changeable. > Since this makes it necessary to recompile the kernel just to use a USB > scanner, I would suggest to deactivate device uscanner in GENERIC for > future kernels to make the use of FreeBSD a bit more painless for > newbies. If needed, uscanner.ko can still be loaded as a module. If uscanner attaches to a scanner, why do you want it via libusb? Where is the problem with uscanner vs. ugen/libusb? Do we need any uscanner enhancements? -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de bernd@bwct.de info@bwct.de