I have two SuSE 9.1 setups; one on a desktop and the other a laptop. The laptop can see my Canon IXUS camera; the desktop can't, though it used to be able to last week on 9.0 before I installed the new version of the OS. USB printer is fine. Does anyone know how to debug this part of the system?
-- GT
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 06:49:10PM +0100, Graham wrote:
I have two SuSE 9.1 setups; one on a desktop and the other a laptop. The laptop can see my Canon IXUS camera; the desktop can't, though it used to be able to last week on 9.0 before I installed the new version of the OS. USB printer is fine. Does anyone know how to debug this part of the system?
What does dmesg report when you plug the camera in? At least this will tell you if the camera is being detected. If it gets that far then it is usually up to hotplug do something with that information. Also how did you get pictures off the camera in the past? did it appear as a removable hard disk or did you need to use an application to pull the pictures off?
Adam
On Saturday 26 June 2004 19:38, adam@thebowery.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 06:49:10PM +0100, Graham wrote:
I have two SuSE 9.1 setups; one on a desktop and the other a laptop. The laptop can see my Canon IXUS camera; the desktop can't, though it used to be able to last week on 9.0 before I installed the new version of the OS. USB printer is fine. Does anyone know how to debug this part of the system?
What does dmesg report when you plug the camera in? At least this will tell you if the camera is being detected. If it gets that far then it is usually up to hotplug do something with that information. Also how did you get pictures off the camera in the past? did it appear as a removable hard disk or did you need to use an application to pull the pictures off?
Adam
Thanks for diving in, Adam - here's what I've got:
dmesg reports "usb 4-2: new full speed USB device using address 2".
On the desktop machine using 9.0 I used DigiKam, the KDE front-end for GPhoto2. It now won't autodetect the camera and reports "Failed to autodetect camera". Manual doesn't work either; it reports "Failed to initialize camera". On the laptop with 9.0 the camera appeared as a hard disk; on 9.1 it doesn't show but DigiCam works.
On the desktop machine the sound doesn't work either, though I believe it did just after I installed. Any attempt to play audio results in dmesg spewing out a load of messages like
"ALSA sound/pci/via82xx.c:728: invalid via82xx_cur_ptr, using last valid pointer"
Also, issuing a command at the laptop to copy a file from the desktop (mounted as a NFS share) results in very slow transfer with many pauses and loads of the following in dmesg:
"NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out eth0: Transmit timed out, status 0000, PHY status 786d, resetting... eth0: Setting full-duplex based on MII #1 link partner capability of 45e1."
Is this a sick puppy?
-- GT
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 10:50:08PM +0100, Graham wrote:
dmesg reports "usb 4-2: new full speed USB device using address 2".
On the desktop machine using 9.0 I used DigiKam, the KDE front-end for GPhoto2. It now won't autodetect the camera and reports "Failed to autodetect camera". Manual doesn't work either; it reports "Failed to initialize camera". On the laptop with 9.0 the camera appeared as a hard disk; on 9.1 it doesn't show but DigiCam works.
Ok, sounds like hotplug isn't doing its magic. ISTR that on this machine (Debian unstable) I had to write a small script so that hotplug would create the device nodes and assign them the right permissions (although, this was about 2 years ago) to get the data under my normal user id (if not I would have to be root to make it work) I presume this is similar to what is happening here. First off I would try google to see if other people are having this problem with SuSE 9.1, if not you will have to investigate hotplug and gphoto2 a bit more closly (sorry I can't be of more specific help, are you coming to the UEA tomorrow? if so I could take a look then) or you could do what I did because I always got annoyed with flaky digicam drivers (they also seemed crap in windows) and bought a 6 in 1 card reader :)
"ALSA sound/pci/via82xx.c:728: invalid via82xx_cur_ptr, using last valid pointer"
Sounds like they perhaps need to release a new kernel :)
"NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out eth0: Transmit timed out, status 0000, PHY status 786d, resetting... eth0: Setting full-duplex based on MII #1 link partner capability of 45e1."
Is this a sick puppy?
I would put it down to the SuSE kernel being a bit, well, ummm SuSE :) I don't think I can help much really, I would try a few SuSE specific forums/sites etc.
Adam
On Saturday 26 June 2004 23:08, adam@thebowery.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 10:50:08PM +0100, Graham wrote:
"NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out eth0: Transmit timed out, status 0000, PHY status 786d, resetting... eth0: Setting full-duplex based on MII #1 link partner capability of 45e1."
Is this a sick puppy?
I would put it down to the SuSE kernel being a bit, well, ummm SuSE :) I don't think I can help much really, I would try a few SuSE specific forums/sites etc.
Adam
Thanks for pointing me at the kernel. I note that following installation and online update, the laptop and a third machine both report the kernel to be 2.6.4-52 whereas the troublesome machine is 2.6.5-7.75. Only the latter is unable to see the camera, and the network looks healthy on both the others. Does the odd-number minor version imply a risky kernel, and if so how do I get a sensible one back without reinstalling the system?
-- GT
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 10:12:40AM +0100, Graham wrote:
Thanks for pointing me at the kernel. I note that following installation and online update, the laptop and a third machine both report the kernel to be 2.6.4-52 whereas the troublesome machine is 2.6.5-7.75. Only the latter is unable to see the camera, and the network looks healthy on both the others. Does the odd-number minor version imply a risky kernel, and if so how do I get a sensible one back without reinstalling the system?
Dunno, should be easy in SuSE though :) It will involve installing an rpm and whatever to configure the bootloaded, SuSE may have its own "special" way though which I wouldn't want to interfere with :)
The odd version number doesn't imply a risky kernel at all, Linux kernel number works as Major Version, Minor Version, Release (ish, not sure what the "official" names are) so what you have is release 5 of version 2.6 If the 2nd number is an odd number then that will signify a development version of the kernel (i.e. 2.5.6 or 2.7.6 would be in development) but of course even now kernel 2.6 series can have a fair few bugs. The 7.75 part of the kernel name is what SuSE have added as their package/version number.
All that it looks like is that SuSE have released a new distro which perhaps hasn't had as much testing as it should have done, I would suspect that they would quite quickly release a new kernel to fix these bugs. If not, you can either try downgrading your kernel or building your own :)
Adam
On Sunday 27 June 2004 09:12, Graham wrote:
Thanks for pointing me at the kernel. I note that following installation and online update, the laptop and a third machine both report the kernel to be 2.6.4-52 whereas the troublesome machine is 2.6.5-7.75. Only the latter is unable to see the camera, and the network looks healthy on both the others. Does the odd-number minor version imply a risky kernel, and if so how do I get a sensible one back without reinstalling the system?
-- GT
Simply installing the kernel and kernel source rpms from the installation media should do the trick. Also if you boot with Lilo rather than grub then run lilo as root before rebooting. I think if you want to do this with YaST then you need to remove the current kernel first then run YaST again to install the original one. Otherwise force it over with rpm.
Funny I have never seen a SuSE box jump a minor kernel version via online updates. My 9.0 box for example as always been 2.4.21-xxx with xxx changing every time there is a kernel update. Also I have never seen a SuSE kernel with a . in the revision level. That said I haven't played with 9.1 yet so things may have changed.
On Monday 28 June 2004 10:12, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Sunday 27 June 2004 09:12, Graham wrote:
Thanks for pointing me at the kernel. I note that following installation and online update, the laptop and a third machine both report the kernel to be 2.6.4-52 whereas the troublesome machine is 2.6.5-7.75. Only the latter is unable to see the camera, and the network looks healthy on both the others. Does the odd-number minor version imply a risky kernel, and if so how do I get a sensible one back without reinstalling the system?
-- GT
Simply installing the kernel and kernel source rpms from the installation media should do the trick. Also if you boot with Lilo rather than grub then run lilo as root before rebooting. I think if you want to do this with YaST then you need to remove the current kernel first then run YaST again to install the original one. Otherwise force it over with rpm.
Funny I have never seen a SuSE box jump a minor kernel version via online updates. My 9.0 box for example as always been 2.4.21-xxx with xxx changing every time there is a kernel update. Also I have never seen a SuSE kernel with a . in the revision level. That said I haven't played with 9.1 yet so things may have changed.
After last posting the machine suffered a gradual slide into senile dementia. The printer was next to go and I was only just able to get my home folder backed up onto another machine before the network ground to a halt. Rather than waste more time with things I didn't understand I decided to go for a complete reinstall, something I have to do regularly with Windows machines that gradually self-destruct. It doesn't take that long if you're used to it. The computer is back up and running again, but I have no intention of going near the offered kernel upgrade; not yet at least.
I have a further problem with the on-board sound, but my folder nesting is getting out of hand so I'll take that up in a new thread.
-- GT
On Saturday 26 June 2004 23:08, adam@thebowery.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 10:50:08PM +0100, Graham wrote:
"ALSA sound/pci/via82xx.c:728: invalid via82xx_cur_ptr, using last valid pointer"
Sounds like they perhaps need to release a new kernel :)
"NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out eth0: Transmit timed out, status 0000, PHY status 786d, resetting... eth0: Setting full-duplex based on MII #1 link partner capability of 45e1."
I found the answer after hitting the right phrase to give to Google. Regarding VIA 8235 sound and SuSE 9.1, it seems YAST incorrectly configures the audio system, resulting in floods of kernel errors in /var/log/messages and no sound. The solution is to abandon YAST and let alsaconf do the job, which I might already have done if I'd ever heard of alsaconf.
So the sick puppy is once again bounding about.
-- GT
Graham wrote:
On Saturday 26 June 2004 19:38, adam@thebowery.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 06:49:10PM +0100, Graham wrote:
I have two SuSE 9.1 setups; one on a desktop and the other a laptop. The laptop can see my Canon IXUS camera; the desktop can't, though it used to be able to last week on 9.0 before I installed the new version of the OS. USB printer is fine. Does anyone know how to debug this part of the system?
What does dmesg report when you plug the camera in? At least this will tell you if the camera is being detected. If it gets that far then it is usually up to hotplug do something with that information. Also how did you get pictures off the camera in the past? did it appear as a removable hard disk or did you need to use an application to pull the pictures off?
Adam
Thanks for diving in, Adam - here's what I've got:
dmesg reports "usb 4-2: new full speed USB device using address 2".
On the desktop machine using 9.0 I used DigiKam, the KDE front-end for GPhoto2. It now won't autodetect the camera and reports "Failed to autodetect camera". Manual doesn't work either; it reports "Failed to initialize camera". On the laptop with 9.0 the camera appeared as a hard disk; on 9.1 it doesn't show but DigiCam works.
Hmmmm. I've just done a quick google and I couldn't find out if the ixus behaves like a mass storage device or not. Could you do an 'lsmod' to see if the usb-storage module is loaded after plugging in the camera on both machines?
BenE
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 11:17:44PM +0100, BenEBoy wrote:
Hmmmm. I've just done a quick google and I couldn't find out if the ixus behaves like a mass storage device or not. Could you do an 'lsmod' to see if the usb-storage module is loaded after plugging in the camera on both machines?
I would suspect that it doesn't as thus far all my experiences with Canon cameras is that they don't do mass storage, and it also seems that there is at least 10 models of Canon cameras that have "IXUS" in the title.
Adam
-
adam＠thebowery.co.uk -
BenEBoy -
Graham -
Paul -
Wayne Stallwood