Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:57:23 +0200 From: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely12.cicely.de> To: Mattias Schlenker <mattias@schlenker-webdesign.de> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: device uscanner in GENERIC? Message-ID: <20040420135723.GH5279@cicely12.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <408524AC.7040506@schlenker-webdesign.de> References: <408524AC.7040506@schlenker-webdesign.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040420135723.GH5279>