For me 2.5.72 works, 2.5.74 does not - no working ZIP drive.
The cause is the recent fiddling of use_10 / do_mode_sense.
If this is known and has a patch on the way all is well.
Otherwise I can send a patch.
Andries
(It feels as if I have to repair this area every other month.)
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:06:17AM +0200, [email protected] wrote:
> For me 2.5.72 works, 2.5.74 does not - no working ZIP drive.
> The cause is the recent fiddling of use_10 / do_mode_sense.
> If this is known and has a patch on the way all is well.
> Otherwise I can send a patch.
Really? I expected bug reports for CD-ROM, but not for Direct Access
devices. What's going bad?
> (It feels as if I have to repair this area every other month.)
That's why I originally wanted to just filter all MODE_SENSE commands from
the USB layer.
Matt
--
Matthew Dharm Home: [email protected]
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
S: Another stupid question?
G: There's no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid people.
-- Stef and Greg
User Friendly, 7/15/1998
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 05:10:53PM -0700, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:06:17AM +0200, [email protected] wrote:
> > For me 2.5.72 works, 2.5.74 does not - no working ZIP drive.
> > The cause is the recent fiddling of use_10 / do_mode_sense.
> > If this is known and has a patch on the way all is well.
> > Otherwise I can send a patch.
>
> Really? I expected bug reports for CD-ROM, but not for Direct Access
> devices. What's going bad?
I just did some re-testing, and my self-powered Zip250 and Zip750 work.
The 750 takes a few seconds to initialize, but nothing really bad.
What Zip do you have that doesn't work?
Matt
--
Matthew Dharm Home: [email protected]
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
Somebody call an exorcist!
-- Dust Puppy
User Friendly, 5/16/1998
> I just did some re-testing, and my self-powered Zip250 and Zip750 work.
> The 750 takes a few seconds to initialize, but nothing really bad.
> What Zip do you have that doesn't work?
2.5.72 or patched 2.5.74:
<4>imm: Version 2.05 (for Linux 2.4.0)
<4>imm: Found device at ID 6, Attempting to use EPP 32 bit
<4>imm: Found device at ID 6, Attempting to use SPP
<4>imm: Communication established at 0x378 with ID 6 using SPP
<6>scsi1 : Iomega VPI2 (imm) interface
<5> Vendor: IOMEGA Model: ZIP 100 Rev: P.05
<5> Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
<5>SCSI device sda: 196608 512-byte hdwr sectors (101 MB)
<5>sda: Write Protect is off
<5>sda: cache data unavailable
<6> sda: sda4
<5>Attached scsi removable disk sda at scsi1, channel 0, id 6, lun 0
An unpatched 2.5.74 says
<4>IMM: returned SCSI status b8
<4>sda: test WP failed, assume Write Enabled
<3>sda: asking for cache data failed
<5>sda : READ CAPACITY failed.
<4>sda: test WP failed, assume Write Enabled
<3>Buffer I/O error on device sda, logical block 0
<6> sda: unable to read partition table
and no I/O is possible.
Andries
IMM? So this is the parallel-port version?
Do you still get the proper INQUIRY from 2.5.74? What about the device
size?
Matt
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:52:21PM +0200, [email protected] wrote:
> > I just did some re-testing, and my self-powered Zip250 and Zip750 work.
> > The 750 takes a few seconds to initialize, but nothing really bad.
> > What Zip do you have that doesn't work?
>
> 2.5.72 or patched 2.5.74:
>
> <4>imm: Version 2.05 (for Linux 2.4.0)
> <4>imm: Found device at ID 6, Attempting to use EPP 32 bit
> <4>imm: Found device at ID 6, Attempting to use SPP
> <4>imm: Communication established at 0x378 with ID 6 using SPP
> <6>scsi1 : Iomega VPI2 (imm) interface
> <5> Vendor: IOMEGA Model: ZIP 100 Rev: P.05
> <5> Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
> <5>SCSI device sda: 196608 512-byte hdwr sectors (101 MB)
> <5>sda: Write Protect is off
> <5>sda: cache data unavailable
> <6> sda: sda4
> <5>Attached scsi removable disk sda at scsi1, channel 0, id 6, lun 0
>
> An unpatched 2.5.74 says
>
> <4>IMM: returned SCSI status b8
> <4>sda: test WP failed, assume Write Enabled
> <3>sda: asking for cache data failed
> <5>sda : READ CAPACITY failed.
> <4>sda: test WP failed, assume Write Enabled
> <3>Buffer I/O error on device sda, logical block 0
> <6> sda: unable to read partition table
>
> and no I/O is possible.
>
> Andries
--
Matthew Dharm Home: [email protected]
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
Department of Justice agent. I have come to purify the flock.
-- DOJ agent
User Friendly, 5/22/1998
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:08:06PM +0200, [email protected] wrote:
> From [email protected] Fri Jul 4 23:00:41 2003
>
> Do you still get the proper INQUIRY from 2.5.74?
>
> Yes. But there is no need for you to worry.
> This device just needs use_10_for_ms = 0.
> When that is set all is well.
Okay, so the question as I see it is this: Do we go back to use_10_for_ms
= 0 for the default, or do we make the IMM driver set it to 0 in the
slave_configure() function?
Matt
--
Matthew Dharm Home: [email protected]
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
Type "format c:" That should fix everything.
-- Greg
User Friendly, 12/18/1997
From [email protected] Fri Jul 4 23:00:41 2003
Do you still get the proper INQUIRY from 2.5.74?
Yes. But there is no need for you to worry.
This device just needs use_10_for_ms = 0.
When that is set all is well.
Andries
From [email protected] Fri Jul 4 23:09:37 2003
Okay, so the question as I see it is this:
Do we go back to use_10_for_ms = 0 for the default,
or do we make the IMM driver set it to 0 in the
slave_configure() function?
I agree completely - that is the question.
The answer I gave is
- sdev->use_10_for_ms = 1;
+ sdev->use_10_for_ms = 0;
It is possible to have use_10_for_ms == 1 as the default, but then
all drivers that cannot handle that must change that setting privately.
Maybe that is the future, but for today I would prefer
the known working version.
Andries