On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 12:00:40PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Matthew Dharm wrote: > > > I hate to be this pedantic, but would you call 2.4.23 'working'? > > It looks like it's working to me...
It looks like it to me, also.... but the final arbiter of 'working' or
'not' is the end-user.
> > I'm starting to fear that this device needs to see a MODE_SENSE.... it
> > looks like START_STOP isn't the problem...
>
> I almost have to agree with you. Certainly STOP STOP UNIT isn't
> necessary.
Agreed. I'm just wondering if the MODE_SENSE is necessary. That would be
about the most [EMAIL PROTECTED]@@-up device I've ever seen, if it does.
> There's just one significant difference between this log and the one from
> 2.6. Christian, could you try doing this over again, using 2.4.23, but
> this time do "modprobe sd_mod" before plugging in the camera? In the log
> from 2.6, sd_mod was already loaded. In this log, it didn't get loaded
> until you issued the mount command. It's just barely possible that the
> time delay had some effect.
I've had, in the back of my mind, a suspicion that linux usb-storage is too
fast, but I've never been really able to find any empirical evidence to
support that theory (with one exception -- a user whose device worked with
a 5-second delay added).
> You might also test the MODE SENSE command under 2.6 to see if adding it
> in helps at all. You can do that by typing the following (as root) before
> plugging in the camera:
This is more than just a good idea -- we really should have this data.
Matt
--
Matthew Dharm Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
Oh great modem, why hast thou forsaken me?
-- Dust Puppy
User Friendly, 3/2/1998
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
