On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:39 AM, ABC <abc at telekom.ru> wrote: > Alex Eftimie, > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 01:56:08PM +0300, Alex Eftimie wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 1:31 PM, ABC <abc at telekom.ru> wrote: >> > It maybe be becasue (it is possible) that smfp using different scanning >> > mode, like different resolution. (And then doing some image conversion >> > internally.) xerox_mfp driver's settings are 'physical' for the device. >> >> Well, I'm setting the resolution myself, with --resolution=300 (the >> same for xerox_mfp and smfp). Also, I'm using as color mode: "Lineart" >> for xerox_mfp and "Black and White - Line Art" for smfp. But still 4 >> seconds vs 10 seconds. Can I get 'physical' with smfp :D? > > Regarding longer scans via smfp driver, I looked your usbmon logs. Scan > parameters seems to be nearly equal. And I see that smfp (1.mon.out) > driver send device INQUIRY reqest 4 times with interval from first to last > request ~3 seconds. Total time of smfp scan is 8.7 seconds. Total time > of xerox_mfp scan is 4.3 seconds. Image data reading time in both cases > is nearly 1 second. Time between first image request and image data flow > is ~3.5 seconds. So I conclude that smfp driver spend difference in > time internally and actual speed of working with device and device > itself is the same. Why is smfp driver spending time inernally? > Unknown. It may be just some hardcoded intervals between commands.
Sorry for the late reply. > It seems your usbmon logs don't contain case when scanimage fail with > xerox_mfp driver. As I understand it would fail if `scanimage -L' will > be run twice (it will fail second time). So it will be useful to have > usbmon log of such case. Here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/u4p87ustkef1dw5/12nemzRUYO are the usbmon logs for: default (xerox_mfp) and proprietari (smfp) drivers, running two consecutive `scanimage -L`. Hope this will give you some hints regarding the underlying issue. Cheers, Alex
