Am Dienstag, 20. März 2007 16:06 schrieb Alan Stern:
> Whenever a new capability is added to the kernel, one runs across devices
> which ought to support it but do not. One doesn't want to penalize the
> vast majority of devices that have no problem for the sake of a few. We
> have blacklists
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Montag, 19. März 2007 19:38 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > Judging from the bug report, it sounds like a problem with the userspace
> > tools -- apparently either scanimage or sane exits before the scanner is
> > ready. Or maybe the problem lies in the sc
Am Montag, 19. März 2007 19:38 schrieb Alan Stern:
> Judging from the bug report, it sounds like a problem with the userspace
> tools -- apparently either scanimage or sane exits before the scanner is
> ready. Or maybe the problem lies in the scanner itself; it can't finish
> its reset procedur
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Montag, 19. März 2007 17:21 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I got another bug report about a scanner disconnecting when
> > > suspended. Could we introduce a setting for deciding whether
>
Am Montag, 19. März 2007 17:21 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I got another bug report about a scanner disconnecting when
> > suspended. Could we introduce a setting for deciding whether
> > unbound devices should by default be subject to autosus
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got another bug report about a scanner disconnecting when
> suspended. Could we introduce a setting for deciding whether
> unbound devices should by default be subject to autosuspend?
That's what the new quirks are for. Besides, what's wrong
Hi,
I got another bug report about a scanner disconnecting when
suspended. Could we introduce a setting for deciding whether
unbound devices should by default be subject to autosuspend?
Regards
Oliver
---
