Re: [tlug] Scanner not found

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com>]

Raedwolf Summoner writes:

 > (Turned out to be gallstones.) It has been hectic since.

I guess so!  Best wishes to her for a speedy complete recovery.
 > > # Brother MFC-6490CW 
 > > ATTRS{idVendor}=="04f9", ATTRS{idProduct}=="01f2", MODE="0664", GROUP="scanner", ENV{libsane_matched}="yes"
 > 
 > My entry is as follows:
 >
 > # Brother scanners
 > ATTRS{idVendor}=="04f9", ENV{libsane_matched}="yes"
 > 
 > Compared to your example, it looks as if I may need to flesh it out some.

Please do try that.  It may be all you need.


 > … [loooong list ofscanner names omitted]

You can comment or remove them, which may speed things up.  Or even
solve your problem.  Sometimes a wrong driver can tickle the hardware
into failing completely.  (Eg, an "improved" buslogic driver for the
first public release of Windows NT using undocumented instructions
that tell your AMI Buslogic clone to wipe the disk -- I restored the
Linux partition -- 95% or so -- from backup, but decided to forget
Windows. :-)

 > brother3

Is there a driver with that name in /usr/lib64/sane/ (or perhaps
/usr/lib/sane or /usr/lib32/sane)?  Perhaps it's missing the 3?  Does
"ldd `whereis scanimage`" tell you the same wordsize (32 or 64) as
"ldd /usr/lib/sane/*brother*" does?

 > > Then try "scanimage -L".
 > 
 > This does find the scanner.
 > 
 > "device `brother3:bus4;dev1' is a Brother MFC-6490CN USB scanner"

OK, so that's the right address to use for sane, but I don't
understand the difference between the kernel's report and scanimage's.

 > scanimage: open of device =brother3:/dev/bus/usb/003/002 failed: Invalid argument

Ah, my syntax error, I guess.  Remove the = or change it to a space.
Maybe that will do something more reasonable.

I really don't understand what's going on though.  You might see if
the tail of dmesg output (done immediately after any of these
commands, especially the first one after reboot) says anything
interesting about what the kernel found.

Steve