Re: Assessing USB Mass Storage devices

On Sun, 2002-09-15 at 19:31, Pete Zaitcev wrote:

[..]

> Mark, you started the report very well, but ran out of steam
> in the middle, which was a shame. We love concrete things, such
> as "dmesg" above, 

Sorry, I started to get a little frustrated, so after a break, I have
decided to increase dmesg logging level to 9

First plugged Camera into USB port:

hub.c: USB new device connect on bus1/1, assigned device number 2
usb.c: USB device 2 (vend/prod 0x733/0x1310) is not claimed by any
active driver.
Initializing USB Mass Storage driver...
usb.c: registered new driver usb-storage
scsi1 : SCSI emulation for USB Mass Storage devices
  Vendor:           Model: 1.3M DigitalCAM   Rev: 1.00
  Type:   Direct-Access                      ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Attached scsi removable disk sda at scsi1, channel 0, id 0, lun 0
SCSI device sda: 16384 512-byte hdwr sectors (8 MB)
sda: test WP failed, assume Write Enabled
 sda: sda1
WARNING: USB Mass Storage data integrity not assured
USB Mass Storage device found at 2
USB Mass Storage support registered.

Now trying to mount from /dev/sda (this is the only device I found it
could be on from the above output) to the console output:

[root@stimpy root]# mount -t auto /dev/sda /mnt/camera
SCSI device (ioctl) reports ILLEGAL REQUEST.
SCSI device sda: 16384 512-byte hdwr sectors (8 MB)
sda: test WP failed, assume Write Enabled
 I/O error: dev 08:00, sector 0
 unable to read partition table
 I/O error: dev 08:00, sector 0
/dev/sda: Input/output error
SCSI device (ioctl) reports ILLEGAL REQUEST.
SCSI device sda: 16384 512-byte hdwr sectors (8 MB)
sda: test WP failed, assume Write Enabled
 I/O error: dev 08:00, sector 0
 unable to read partition table
SCSI device (ioctl) reports ILLEGAL REQUEST.
Device busy for revalidation (usage=1)
 I/O error: dev 08:00, sector 0
FAT: unable to read boot sector
mount: you must specify the filesystem type

I have also tried using filesystem type as vfat, autofs, msdos, but
still the same, and spending about an 1 hr looking on google and several
web sites, I haven't really managed to get anymore indication why this
isn't working for this device at all.

I know it can be assessed at the kernel level, as VMware can access the
device through (dare I say it WinXP), but I really don't fancy using
VMware to use the camera (as this was my last resort at seeing it I can
get access to the device)

Hopefully this is a bit more helpful :-)

Mark


-- 
---
To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism;
to steal from many is research.